In the rolling fields of Iowa, where one might least expect the drama of high-stakes legal maneuvers, Donald Trump's attorney, Edward "Sideshow Bob" Paltzik, has unwittingly turned a lawsuit into a tutorial on the complexities of civil procedure. Their legal journey began with a controversial case filed in December 2024 against pollster Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register, alleging fraudulent polling results under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act.

Unfortunately for Trump’s legal team, their initial filing in Polk County District Court hit a snag when they only managed to serve Gannett, the parent company of the Register, which is based in Delaware but operates in New York. Gannett’s quick move to transfer the case to federal court introduced Paltzik to the concept of "snap removal," a maneuver allowing defendants to shift cases to federal court before additional in-state defendants are served.

In a twist worthy of legal textbooks, in January, Trump’s lawyers attempted to bring the case back to state court by adding local politicians as plaintiffs, aiming to challenge the jurisdictional balance. However, the judge ruled these additions unnecessary, keeping the case in federal territory. Judge Rebecca Ebinger's decision underscored the nuances of fraudulent joinder and the discretionary power of the court.

The legal saga took another turn when the Iowa legislature passed a bill targeting Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which are often used to silence free speech through burdensome legal costs. This new law, effective July 1, meant that Trump’s case, if not amended by early June, would face new hurdles including potential fee-shifting.

Attempting a last-minute maneuver, Trump’s team dismissed their federal complaint on June 30, hoping to refile in state court just under the wire of the new anti-SLAPP regulations. Yet, in their haste, they overlooked a critical detail: their pending appeal in the Eighth Circuit, which maintained the federal court's hold on the case. This oversight was spotlighted when Gannett contested the dismissal, leading to yet another educational moment for Trump’s counsel on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure concerning voluntary dismissals.

Today, as the court awaits Trump’s response to Gannett’s motion, the legal community watches closely. Each step in this case has provided a clear lesson in the importance of understanding the full scope of civil procedure. Trump’s legal team’s misadventures serve as a stark reminder of the complexities of law and the meticulous attention to detail required in legal practice. As this saga continues to unfold, one wonders what other procedural lessons await Trump’s lawyers in the heartland’s courts.