Judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit against Des Moines Register

<p>A district judge dismissed an election interference lawsuit filed by President Trump against the Des Moines Register, its parent company USA Today Co. (formerly Gannett), and pollster Ann Selzer, rejecting claims that an inaccurate pre-election poll constituted consumer fraud.</p><p>The dismissal represents an early court evaluation of Trump's broader strategy to use litigation against media organizations regarding disputed coverage.</p><hr /><p>In his ruling, Judge Scott Beatle stated that the plaintiff's attempt to invoke fraud law concerning the poll was not a valid legal argument, as political speech is protected by the First Amendment.</p><ul><li>"As such, the only question before the Court is whether the Petition states a claim the law recognizes," Beatle wrote.</li><li>"At its core, the Plaintiffs' Petition seeks to stretch both Iowa statutory and common law beyond their current bounds, turning speech that enjoys the highest category of First Amendment protection into a liability."</li><li>"After considering the parties' arguments, the Court must conclude that the protection is too great and the reach is too far. The case must therefore be dismissed," he wrote.</li></ul><p>Polly Grunfeld Sack, Chief Legal Counsel for USA TODAY Co., stated, "Today is a victory for the First Amendment—and for the essential role of a free press in American democracy. We are gratified that the Court recognized what this meritless lawsuit sought to obscure: that claims of 'fake news' are little more than an attempt to punish news outlets for coverage those in power do not like."</p><ul><li>"A free press is fundamental to an informed public and a vibrant democracy. This decision reaffirms the enduring First Amendment principles that empower journalists and sends a message to those who think they can intimidate the press through legal action."</li></ul><p>The lawsuit is part of a broader effort by Trump and his administration to target media companies with legal action for perceived unfair coverage.</p><ul><li>To date, courts have generally favored media companies, citing the strength of the First Amendment.</li></ul><p>The White House referred inquiries to Trump's personal lawyers, who did not respond regarding potential plans to appeal.</p>