Do you GROK? A post on a subject that’s probably of no interest to most (okay, all) of you, but I was curious (Updated)
/(And besides: it’s my blog, and I can post whatever drivel I like)
Trump scores legal win, getting lawsuit against Iowa pollster, Des Moines Register moved to state court
I read this story in the NY Post earlier this morning and the long-dormant lawyer in me wondered why the opposing parties each preferred different jurisdictions: state court for Trump, federal for the defendants. Up til now, I’ve pretty much used AI to create amusing pictures, look up recipes, or ask for factual summaries of an issue. The results for recipes and pictures have been good to excellent, while the supposed “facts” of certain political issues can be dismally one-sided and left-leaning results, especially when supplied by Google’s version, as I wrote about yesterday.
I really haven’t tried using the tool for slightly more complex questions, and this case seemed to offer an opportunity to try it, so I posed a “What’s it all about, Alphie?” question to X-Grok. My question wasn’t framed with any real precision, but it was early this morning when I submitted it and I was still on my first cup of coffee. Besides, I figured, if Grok were any good, it could figure out what I was looking for.
And it did. It was fascinating to watch a scroll of hundreds of sources flash across my screen as Grok located the case and reviewed, absorbed and analyzed what it found. It took about a minute, and then it spat out a summary, including facts, legal issues presented and analysis of the competing strategies involved. With the possible exception of one comment: “Trump's team has engaged in aggressive forum shopping—selectively choosing the venue perceived as most advantageous—from the outset.”, the summary was, I think, objective, and even what I perceived as a dig at Trump isn’t necessarily inaccurate, I just would perhaps have preferred a balancing sentence pointing out that Trump’s opponents have done and still do pursue the same strategy.
But that’s a quibble. Here’s the question posed, and Grok’s answer:
Overview of the Case and Recent Development President Donald Trump's lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer, Selzer & Company, The Des Moines Register, and its parent company Gannett Co., Inc., stems from a November 2024 Iowa Poll that showed Kamala Harris leading Trump in Iowa by three points—just days before the election. Trump won the state by over 13 points, and his complaint alleges this amounted to "brazen election interference" and violations of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act through deceptive polling methods.
The suit seeks $10 million in damages plus punitive awards.The case was originally filed in Iowa state court (Polk County District Court, Case No. CVCV068364) in December 2024. The defendants promptly removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (Case No. 4:24-cv-00449) under diversity jurisdiction (Trump is a New York resident; defendants are Iowa-based but Gannett is Delaware-based with sufficient controversy amount). Trump repeatedly sought remand to state court, including via motions in February and July 2025, but these were denied by District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger. He also attempted voluntary dismissal without prejudice to refile in state court, but that was blocked while motions to dismiss were pending.
On October 24, 2025 (yesterday, as of the current date), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit granted Trump's rare petition for a writ of mandamus—a supervisory order to correct a lower court's alleged abuse of discretion. The appellate panel (Judges Colloton, Erickson, and Kobes) overturned the district court's refusal to allow voluntary dismissal, directing it to dismiss the federal case without prejudice (meaning no ruling on the merits, preserving Trump's right to refile). This effectively reverses the defendants' removal and sends the dispute back to Iowa state court, where Trump plans to promptly refile an updated complaint.Trump's Legal Strategy:
Why Pursue (and Insist on) State Court?Trump's team has engaged in aggressive forum shopping—selectively choosing the venue perceived as most advantageous—from the outset. Filing in state court and fighting remand reflect a calculated preference for Iowa's judicial environment over federal neutrality. Key advantages they likely see include:
Sympathetic Local Jury and Political Climate: Iowa is a deep-red state where Trump won decisively in 2024. A state court jury (selected from Polk County, which includes Des Moines but leans conservative overall) could be more receptive to narratives of "election interference" and "fake news" from out-of-touch media elites. Federal courts draw from broader pools and emphasize impartiality, potentially diluting this edge. Trump's spokesman called the 8th Circuit ruling a win to litigate "where it belongs," implying state court as friendlier terrain for a high-profile political plaintiff.
State-Specific Substantive Law and Interpretation: The core claim is under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act (Iowa Code § 714.16), which prohibits deceptive practices in commerce. Trump's team argues the poll was a "deceptive product" sold to consumers (voters and media). State judges may interpret this more broadly in favor of local plaintiffs, especially post-election when public sentiment soured on the poll's accuracy. Federal courts apply the same law (via Erie doctrine) but often with a heavier First Amendment overlay, viewing polls as protected speech.
Evading Stronger Federal Dismissal Mechanisms: Federal courts have rigorous pleading standards (e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)) and are quicker to dismiss on 12(b)(6) motions, as seen in the defendants' pending filings. Trump's team accused defendants of "unlawful gamesmanship" to "shop for a more favorable federal forum" and delay accountability. By remanding, they avoid a likely merits ruling that could bar refiling under claim preclusion.
Timing Around Iowa's Anti-SLAPP Law: Iowa's new anti-SLAPP statute (effective July 1, 2025, per House File 233) shields public participation (e.g., polls and reporting) from meritless suits, allowing early dismissal, fee-shifting to plaintiffs, and expedited appeals. Trump tried a similar maneuver in late June 2025—dismissing federal and refiling state the day before it took effect—to argue the law doesn't apply retroactively to the "new" filing. Though blocked then, the October ruling revives this: refiling now creates a fresh docket, potentially letting Trump's team challenge anti-SLAPP applicability or survive it by framing the suit as consumer protection, not speech suppression. (Note: Anti-SLAPP motions are still possible in state court, but Trump's confidence suggests they believe the claims hold up there.)
Overall, this is a delay-and-narrate strategy: Prolong federal wrangling to build public pressure (via media hits on "fake polls"), then pivot to state court for a trial on the merits where optics favor Trump.Defendants' Strategy: Why Remove to (and Fight for) Federal Court?The defendants' immediate removal and opposition to remand exemplify defensive forum shopping to neutralize perceived biases in state court. Their advantages in federal venue include:
Neutrality and Press Protections: Federal judges (like Judge Ebinger, appointed by Biden in 2022) are seen as more insulated from local politics and protective of First Amendment rights. Polls are core journalistic speech (New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)), and federal courts often dismiss similar claims early on public-figure standards or lack of falsity/deception. Defendants' lawyer Bob Corn-Revere (for Selzer) called the suit "frivolous" and procedural-only, betting federal scrutiny would end it without a trial. Gannett's spokesperson Lark-Marie Antón echoed that federal was "appropriate" due to interstate elements but expressed "confidence" in state court fairness—signaling reluctance but resignation.
Procedural Edges for Quick Resolution: Federal rules allow consolidated motions to dismiss (filed February and July 2025), discovery stays, and appeals without state-specific hurdles. Removal leverages diversity jurisdiction cleanly, avoiding any state judge's potential pro-plaintiff leanings. They blocked Trump's voluntary dismissals to force a ruling, arguing it was "procedural gamesmanship" to evade merits review—mirroring Trump's own accusations.
Anti-SLAPP Leverage in Federal?: Ironically, while the new Iowa anti-SLAPP applies in federal court via supplemental jurisdiction (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) integration), defendants may prefer federal application for its uniformity and less risk of state-court expansion. However, their primary goal was dismissal on constitutional grounds, not just anti-SLAPP.
In sum, defendants sought federal court to kill the case early via motions practice, shielding against a politicized state trial that could amplify Trump's grievances and damage reputations, even if they win.Potential Next StepsTrump's team expects to refile in Polk County within days, possibly amending to bolster fraud allegations with post-election data. Defendants will likely counter with an anti-SLAPP motion in state court, seeking fees if successful. This could drag into 2026, aligning with Trump's pattern of using litigation for publicity. The 8th Circuit's mandamus is narrow (procedural only), leaving merits open—but it underscores how venue battles can overshadow substance in high-stakes suits.
Grok also offered the option to dig deeper, and included links to do so:
Explain Iowa Consumer Fraud Act
Similar Trump media lawsuits
Make more concise
The law-oriented blog Instapundit has been reporting instances of courts using false AI results in drafting their opinions — here’s one, posted just yesterday — so caution in accepting this new tool is certainly warranted, but I’m still impressed at how well it performed this search, especially because I wasn’t intending to file a legal brief on the case, I just wanted to understand it. This was sufficient for my purposes.