President Donald Trump speaks as he signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
President Donald Trump improperly added an Iowa congresswoman and former state senator to his lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and pollster J. Ann Selzer in an attempt to “destroy” the court’s jurisdiction and keep his case local, a federal judge ruled Friday.
U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and former Iowa state Sen. Brad Zaun joined Trump’s lawsuit against Selzer, the local newspaper and its parent company, Gannett, in late January and claimed they were harmed by a poll published ahead of the 2024 presidential election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris had a slight lead in the race that Trump went on to win.
The poll, which was conducted by Selzer, was released three days before the election and it predicted that Harris had about a three-point lead in Iowa over then-candidate Trump, who went on to win the state by about 13 points. Trump filed suit in December under an Iowa law against “consumer fraud” — accusing Selzer and the Register of being in cahoots with “cohorts in the Democrat Party” who “hoped that the Harris Poll would create a false narrative of inevitability for Harris in the final week of the 2024 Presidential Election,” according to the complaint.
Trump’s suit accuses the defendants of committing “brazen election interference” through use of the allegedly “manipulated” poll to “deceive voters.” It was initially filed in Iowa state court before being moved to federal court in mid-December.
On Jan. 31, Trump filed an amended complaint to add Miller-Meeks and Zaun before filing a motion on Feb. 21 to have the case remanded back to state court. Trump’s lawyers argued that adding the Iowa-based plaintiffs meant the case must be returned to state court.
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger disagreed, ruling Friday in an 11-page order that the pair be “terminated as plaintiffs” while denying Trump’s motion to return the case to Iowa state court.
“Plaintiffs provide no legitimate rationale for Zaun and Miller-Meeks to join a federal lawsuit only to immediately move to remand,” Ebinger said. “Zaun and Miller-Meeks could have sued defendants in state court without fear of removal. Thus, the only apparent reason to have joined Trump’s lawsuit is to destroy diversity jurisdiction.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
Trump is seeking relief in the form of damages and a court order to prevent the newspaper from publishing any future “deceptive polls” that might “poison the electorate.”
The Register argues that even the relief being sought by the president would be unconstitutional. The newspaper also claims the fraud law under which Trump is suing has no place in a legal action over allegations of election interference. The law is meant to punish unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent conduct “in connection with the advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the solicitation of contributions for charitable purposes.”
In her ruling on Miller-Meeks and Zaun, Ebinger — a Barack Obama appointee — said Friday that Trump “almost certainly knew” of the pair before filing suit.
“Though Trump added the two as co-plaintiffs in the amended complaint less than two months after initially filing the underlying petition, Trump fails to provide a reason why the three did not initially file a petition together,” Ebinger said.
The president’s lawyers had argued that successful attempts by Gannett to get the case moved to federal court were improper “snap removals,” which is when a party removes a case before a forum defendant has officially been served, per Ebinger.
The Southern District judge noted, however, how such moves have been found legal by appellate courts. “Plaintiffs argue snap removal is invalid because it goes against Congress’s intent and encourages defendants to ‘hawk’ state-court dockets,” Ebinger said, before declaring the procedure “valid and appropriate.”
“It appears all Circuit Courts of Appeals to have considered snap removal have found proper interpretation of the statute allows snap removal,” Ebinger added.
Speaking in a statement published Saturday by the Des Moines Register, Gannett spokesperson Lark-Marie Anton said the company and paper have always maintained that the claims asserted by Trump should be heard in federal court.
“We respect the judge’s faithful adherence to the law and the rules in reaching this decision,” Anton said. “And we look forward to litigating the remainder of this case in the appropriate forum.”
