from the play-stupid-games dept
After Donald Trump gained the election, he was nonetheless so filled with hatred, bile, and spite, that he sued the pollster Ann Selzer in addition to the Des Moines Register. Selzer, who has been some of the trusted names in polling, launched a ballot barely earlier than the election that predicted a considerably stunning victory of Kamala Harris in Iowa. It (clearly) turned out to be very fallacious, however making a fallacious prediction doesn’t violate the legislation.
What’s occurred since reveals one thing extra regarding: a scientific method to gaming the authorized system that goes past typical SLAPP swimsuit techniques. Trump’s legal professionals aren’t simply making an attempt to win—they’re making an attempt to take advantage of procedural gaps to keep away from accountability mechanisms particularly designed to cease this type of litigation abuse.
Your entire intent of the lawsuit was to relax speech and punish those that don’t inform Trump what he needs to listen to at each second.
Not surprisingly, the lawsuit will not be going effectively. It was initially filed in an area state court docket in Polk County, Iowa, however the defendants had it eliminated to federal court docket, the place the requirements are even greater, and the place Trump would have a way more troublesome time. Typically talking, defendants in circumstances like this need them in federal courts the place the judges usually tend to perceive the underlying points (particularly round gamesmanship by plaintiffs). On this case, it was eliminated to federal court docket on range grounds, which is typical when the plaintiff is from out of state.
Selzer and the Register sought to dismiss the grievance, whereas Trump sought to have the case despatched again to the state court docket. He did so by (1) including two extra plaintiffs (random different politicians who reside in Iowa so there was not range), and (2) making some bizarre procedural argument that the strategy of removing went in opposition to Congress’s intent. On Could twenty third, the court docket denied Trump’s try to maneuver the case again to state court docket, noting that the procedural argument was nonsense. And it discovered that Trump’s try so as to add Iowa plaintiffs to the case was a fairly clear try and attempt to get round range guidelines to power the case again to the state court docket.
Trump appealed that ruling to the Eighth Circuit, however one thing vital had occurred earlier in Could which it seems Trump’s legal professionals solely realized belatedly. On Could twentieth, Iowa’s governor signed the state’s first anti-SLAPP invoice into legislation. Now, it doesn’t apply to circumstances filed earlier than the legislation goes into impact (July 1st), but it surely does imply that if Trump have been to, say, file a model new lawsuit now, it could be topic to anti-SLAPP guidelines. This could (1) make it even simpler for the case to be dismissed, whereas (2) possible make it so Trump must pay Selzer and the Register’s authorized payments.
So, his legal professionals try some extra gamesmanship. Although they’ve already appealed the district court docket’s ruling, and that attraction is shifting ahead, they’ve tried to voluntarily dismiss the district court docket case, whereas submitting a model new state court docket case with the identical random additional Iowa politician plaintiffs… the day earlier than the brand new anti-SLAPP legislation goes into impact.
Principally, they’re making an attempt to get a do over. The district court docket stated they couldn’t add these additional plaintiffs to keep away from range, and regardless that they appealed that ruling, they nonetheless wish to refile the case (with the added plaintiffs) in state court docket. However they needed to do it earlier than July 1st. However they’d already appealed the district court docket’s denial of the request to remand the case again to state court docket, so this all seems to be pure gamesmanship.
In response, Selzer and the Des Moines Register are asking the district court docket to disclaim Trump’s tried dismissal, noting that it’s clearly enjoying video games to attempt to get across the earlier ruling rejecting the try and ship the case again to state court docket, and even calling out the way it’s doing this to keep away from the brand new anti-SLAPP legislation.
The defendants be aware that when Trump filed his attraction, the district court docket not controls the case:
Nonetheless, the case can’t be dismissed on the district court docket whereas appellate proceedings are ongoing. It is because “the district court docket is divested of jurisdiction over issues on attraction” upon the initiation of that attraction. State ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe, 164 F.3d 1102, 1106 (eighth Cir. 1999); Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638 (eighth Cir. 2007) (discovering that orders pertaining to issues pending on attraction have “no impact”).
After which, they describe how Trump is enjoying video games to keep away from the brand new anti-SLAPP legislation:
Lastly, President Trump’s Discover have to be evaluated within the gentle of long-standing Eighth Circuit legislation holding that “[a] occasion might not dismiss merely to keep away from an hostile choice or search a extra favorable discussion board.” Cahalan v. Rohan, 423 F.3d 815, 818 (eighth Cir. 2005) (citing Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharm., Inc., 187 F.3d 941, 950 (eighth Cir. 1999))
Earlier than this Courtroom, President Trump has misplaced his movement for remand, (ECF No. 65), misplaced his movement to remain the case, (ECF No. 70), and has a pending deadline to file a revised Amended Criticism. (Id.) And fulsome Motions to Dismiss warranting dismissal of the case in full and with prejudice are at present pending earlier than this Courtroom with substantial briefing. (ECF Nos. 24, 28, 33, 35, 51, 52, 57, 61.)
Moreover, together with his improper Discover of Voluntary Dismissal, President Trump newly filed a lawsuit within the Iowa District Courtroom for Polk County as we speak; nonetheless, the brand new Petition is substantively unchanged from the President Trump’s First Amended Criticism within the current case. (See Ex. C: Petition (June 30, 2025).) The timing of this submitting is important: it’s sooner or later earlier than Iowa’s Uniform Public Expression Safety Act (generally referred to as an “antiSLAPP legislation”) goes into impact. See Home File 472, out there at https://www.legis.iowa.gov/laws/BillBook?ga=91&ba=HF472 (Governor’s approval of Home File 472, Uniform Public Expression Safety Act on Could 19, 2025), codified at Iowa Code § 652.1, et seq.; see additionally Iowa Code § 3.7(1) (stating that every one acts “handed at common classes of the final meeting shall take impact on the primary day of July following their passage). This new laws would apply to President Trump’s lawsuit; subsequently, President Trump’s current Discover of Voluntary Elimination would successfully escape the jurisdiction of the federal courts in time to restate his claims in Iowa’s state court docket with out being topic to Iowa’s anti-SLAPP legislation.
In these circumstances, this Courtroom ought to rightly discover that President Trump’s Discover of Voluntary Dismissal improperly seeks “to keep away from [the] hostile choice[s]” of this Courtroom—each previous and future—and “a extra favorable discussion board” in Iowa’s pre-anti-SLAPP courts. Cahalan, 423 F.3d at 818.
The timing right here is nearly comically clear. Trump’s legal professionals clearly realized they’d an issue in the event that they deliberate to file a brand new lawsuit as soon as Iowa’s anti-SLAPP legislation was about to take impact. Their answer was to attempt to dismiss the federal case they’d been preventing to get again to state court docket, refile the very same claims in state court docket, all on the final day earlier than the brand new protections kicked in.
It’s an ideal illustration of how Trump approaches litigation: not as a seek for justice, however as a sport to be manipulated. When the principles change in ways in which may maintain him accountable, he doesn’t settle for the brand new actuality—he tries to seek out procedural workarounds to keep away from them totally.
The federal choose has already seen by way of one spherical of Trump’s clear gamesmanship. Whether or not she’ll permit this newest try and dodge accountability will possible decide whether or not Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register can lastly put this vindictive lawsuit behind them, or whether or not they’ll be dragged by way of state court docket proceedings that ought to by no means have been allowed within the first place.
Filed Beneath: ann selzer, anti-slapp, range, donald trump, iowa, opinions, polling, remand, slapp
Firms: des moines register
