Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against Iowa newspaper and pollster over 2024 race

An Iowa judge has dismissed President Donald Trump's lawsuit against The Des Moines Register and its former pollster over a poll that showed the president trailing former Vice-President Kamala Harris in the 2024 race.

The judge ruled that the poll was protected by the US Constitution, and dismissed the president's argument that pollster J Ann Selzer had engaged in "brazen election interference" and that the inaccurate prediction constituted fraud.

Trump had filed the lawsuit suit after he won the election in the state of Iowa by 14 points.

In a statement to US media, a spokesperson said the president was "committed to holding responsible those who traffic in deception and fake news".

Trump sought 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", Judge Scott Beattie wrote in a 64-page ruling.

Judge Beattie added that allowing a "legally faulty claim like this" to go forward "carries a cost that an ordinary case does not, because defending it can discourage others from reporting on and debating public affairs".

The president - who had accused the polling company of intentionally publishing an inaccurate poll - was joined by two Republicans, Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and former Iowa state Senator Brad Zaun, in his lawsuit.

"This scam was designed to damage President Trump's dominant campaign in the final days of the race," his spokesperson told US media. The BBC has contacted Trump's legal team for comment.

Selzer's polls have successfully predicted several election outcomes, including former President Barack Obama's sizeable win in the 2008 Iowa caucuses and the 2014 Senate election in Iowa.

But her polls have proven wrong on other occasions, including when she inaccurately predicted John Kerry to beat George W Bush in Iowa in the 2004 presidential election.

In a statement to US media after the ruling, Selzer said polling was a social science, not "clairvoyance".

"What we can guarantee is that we will follow the data wherever it leads, even when the results are uncomfortable or unexpected," she said. "I am grateful that Judge Beattie's ruling recognises these principles and reaffirms the fundamental freedom to pursue and publish the truth without political interference."