• President Trump has dropped his lawsuit against Iowa pollster Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register, which stemmed from a 2020 poll showing Kamala Harris leading in Iowa. The case sparked debates over press freedom, First Amendment protections, and the growing use of lawsuits to challenge unfavorable media coverage.

DES MOINES, IA (TDR) — President Trump has officially dropped his lawsuit against Iowa pollster Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register. The lawsuit, filed in December, stemmed from a poll conducted by Selzer ahead of the November election, which showed Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump in Iowa. This legal move follows months of debate about the case’s implications for freedom of the press and First Amendment protections.

Trump Drops Lawsuit Over Disputed Poll Results

The poll in question, conducted shortly before the election, showed Harris leading Trump 47% to 44% among likely Iowa voters, a result that made national headlines. President Trump criticized the poll as “fake news” and alleged it constituted “brazen election interference.” His legal team framed the lawsuit as a consumer fraud issue under Iowa law, claiming that the poll caused “substantial, unavoidable injury to consumers.”

Selzer, a well-known pollster in Iowa, was represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan free speech advocacy nonprofit. In January, FIRE announced it would represent Selzer pro bono, with lead attorney Robert Corn-Revere calling the lawsuit “about as unconstitutional as it gets.”

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

“This case is larger than any one pollster or publisher; it’s part of ongoing efforts to intimidate the media and weaken First Amendment protections,” Corn-Revere said in February. He added that the legal claims were “fatally flawed on every level.”

Legal and Media Freedom Implications

The lawsuit drew significant attention, as it challenged the role of polling in democratic elections and the media’s responsibility in publishing results. Legal experts described the case as a test of free speech rights in the United States. In February, Selzer’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss, citing extensive case precedent and arguing that the lawsuit was an attempt to undermine First Amendment protections.

The motion stated that the case was “a transparent attempt to punish news coverage and analysis of a political campaign.” It also criticized the use of Iowa’s consumer fraud law, a tactic frequently employed in litigious battles by Trump and others to circumvent anti-SLAPP defenses. This provision aims to protect individuals and organizations from lawsuits intended to silence or intimidate them.

“Efforts like these risk setting dangerous precedents, threatening the ability of journalists and pollsters to operate freely,” said Greg Greubel, one of Selzer’s attorneys.

Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

On Monday, Trump’s attorneys Edward Paltzik and Alan Ostergren filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice, meaning the lawsuit could theoretically be refiled before the statute of limitations expires. However, Selzer’s legal team indicated there was no settlement involved, suggesting that Selzer had not paid any compensation to Trump or the other plaintiffs.

NPR investigative correspondent Tom Dreisbach reported that Selzer’s legal counsel confirmed no monetary settlement had been reached. This adds to the perception that the case lacked substantial legal merit from the outset.

Broader Context and Global Relevance

The lawsuit underscores growing tensions between political figures and the media, particularly in the context of polling and election coverage. It also highlights global debates over press freedom and the role of public figures in challenging unfavorable media narratives. As countries worldwide grapple with disinformation and strained media relations, cases like this have far-reaching implications.

This isn’t the first time legal action has been used as a tool to challenge critics. Experts warn that such lawsuits, even when dismissed, can have a chilling effect on the media and other institutions tasked with holding public officials accountable.

“These cases are part of a broader trend of using the legal system to silence criticism, which is a worrying development for democracies globally,” said Conor Fitzpatrick, another attorney for Selzer.

What’s Next?

While this particular case may be over, the broader issues it raises remain unresolved. Legal experts and advocacy groups suggest that stronger protections for journalists and pollsters may be necessary to prevent similar lawsuits in the future. Public awareness and support for press freedom are also key to maintaining democratic principles.

Readers are encouraged to stay informed about issues affecting media freedom and share their thoughts. Do you believe stronger measures are needed to protect journalists and pollsters from legal intimidation? Share your comments below.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10