Eighth Circuit Hears Des Moines Register Trump Poll Lawsuit Appeal

• A Des Moines Register subscriber, Dennis Donnelly, appealed the dismissal of his class-action lawsuit over a 2024 presidential poll that significantly mispredicted election results.
• The poll, conducted by the Register and J. Ann Selzer, showed Donald Trump losing Iowa by 3 points, but he won by over 13 points.
• A federal judge initially dismissed the case in November 2025, citing First Amendment protections under the *New York Times v. Sullivan* actual malice standard.
• Donnelly's attorney argued the newspaper's own description of the poll as 'stunning, shocking, surprising' suggested subjective doubt about its accuracy.
• The defense contended that allowing such a lawsuit would create an 'absurd' precedent, enabling subscribers to sue over any perceived inaccuracy in news reporting.

The core question before the Eighth Circuit is whether the actual malice standard, typically applied in defamation cases, extends to shield media organizations from consumer fraud claims stemming from alleged inaccuracies in their reporting, even when those inaccuracies are substantial.

A federal appeals court in St. Louis recently heard arguments in a class-action lawsuit brought by a Des Moines Register subscriber, Dennis Donnelly, who alleges he and others were defrauded by a 2024 presidential poll. The poll, conducted by the newspaper and its pollster J. Ann Selzer, indicated that former President Donald Trump would lose Iowa to Kamala Harris by three percentage points. However, the actual election results showed Trump winning the state by more than 13 points, a significant 16-point discrepancy.

Donnelly's lawsuit, which initially included claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, consumer fraud, professional malpractice, and interference with voting rights, was first filed in state court. The Des Moines Register subsequently moved the case to federal court, which then denied Donnelly's request to send it back to state jurisdiction. In November 2025, a federal judge dismissed the entire case, citing First Amendment protections afforded to media organizations under the actual malice standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in *New York Times v. Sullivan*. Donnelly has since appealed both the dismissal and the denial of his motion to remand to state court. Notably, a separate but identical claim filed by Donald Trump himself against the Register and Selzer remains pending in an Iowa state court.

Central to the *Des Moines Register Trump poll lawsuit appeal* is the tension between consumer protection statutes and the First Amendment's safeguards for the press. Daniel R. Suhr, representing Donnelly, argued before the Eighth Circuit panel that there is a reasonable inference that the Register and J. Ann Selzer acted knowingly or recklessly in publishing the poll. Suhr highlighted the newspaper's own description of the poll as “stunning, shocking, surprising,” suggesting this indicated subjective doubt about its accuracy. He further contended that the 16-point deviation from the actual election outcome was so statistically improbable—a 1 in 3.5 million chance of being an honest mistake—that it should raise a significant inference of subjective doubt on the part of the publishers.

Conversely, Robert Corn-Revere, representing J. Ann Selzer, defended the lower court's decision to dismiss the case, characterizing the plaintiff's theory of liability as “absurd.” He warned that allowing such claims would create an overly broad precedent, enabling any subscriber to sue a publication based on their belief that the news product was inaccurate. The Des Moines Register, in its brief, also asserted that Donnelly cannot circumvent the First Amendment's protection for its news reporting on a paramount matter of public interest, such as the 2024 presidential election, by misapplying the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) or Iowa's common law. The newspaper denies all of Donnelly's allegations, maintaining that the initial dismissal was correct due to the First Amendment's shield for media defendants under the *New York Times v. Sullivan* actual malice standard.

This *Dennis Donnelly lawsuit* against the Des Moines Register and J. Ann Selzer carries significant implications for the landscape of media liability, particularly concerning the application of consumer protection laws to journalistic content. The core question before the Eighth Circuit is whether the actual malice standard, typically applied in defamation cases, extends to shield media organizations from consumer fraud claims stemming from alleged inaccuracies in their reporting, even when those inaccuracies are substantial. The outcome of this *Eighth Circuit media protection* case could redefine the boundaries of what constitutes protected speech versus actionable misrepresentation in the context of published news.

Should the court allow the lawsuit to proceed, it could open new avenues for challenging media reporting under statutes like the *Iowa Consumer Fraud Act media*, potentially exposing news outlets to a broader range of legal challenges beyond traditional defamation. Conversely, upholding the dismissal would reinforce the robust First Amendment protections for the press, emphasizing the high bar of actual malice for claims that seek to hold media accountable for perceived inaccuracies in their published content. The decision will be closely watched by legal professionals and media organizations alike, as it will clarify the extent to which consumer protection statutes can be used to scrutinize journalistic output.

This case examines the extent to which the First Amendment's actual malice standard, established in *New York Times v. Sullivan*, shields media organizations from consumer fraud claims related to their published content, even when alleged inaccuracies are significant. Lawyers should monitor the Eighth Circuit's decision to understand potential new avenues or limitations for challenging media reporting under consumer protection statutes and the implications for media liability beyond defamation.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service