• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Digital News Updates
  • Home
  • News
  • Politics
  • Business

Court Blocks SD Abortion Pill Ad Ban

July 20, 2026

A federal judge on Friday blocked South Dakota from enforcing a new state law restricting advertising for abortion pills against a New York-based reproductive health nonprofit, dealing a temporary setback to the state’s effort to crack down on abortion pill information campaigns.

U.S. District Judge Camela Theeler issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of House Bill 1274 against Mayday Health and plaintiff Nancy Turbak Berry, finding the nonprofit was likely to succeed in its challenge to the law. The judge found Mayday Health’s advertising constituted nonprofit speech on a matter of public concern rather than commercial speech, and was therefore entitled to full First Amendment protection rather than the reduced protection that applies to commercial advertising.

The case stems from a campaign Mayday Health ran in December 2025, placing placards at South Dakota gas stations reading “Pregnant? Don’t want to be? Learn More at Mayday.Health.” Attorney General Marty Jackley issued a cease-and-desist letter and filed a state court lawsuit against the organization. Mayday Health countersued in federal court and the dispute continued after Rhoden signed HB 1274 into law in March 2026, which broadly prohibited advertising for abortion pills and for out-of-state suppliers willing to ship abortion pills into South Dakota.

Gov. Larry Rhoden said he was disappointed by the ruling but emphasized it was only a preliminary decision. Rhoden said he remained confident the law is constitutional and vitally important, and thanked Jackley and his team for their continued defense of the state’s laws.

Jackley said the state respectfully disagreed with the court’s ruling and that the case would continue to a full trial on a permanent injunction, with additional discovery and information about Mayday’s activities still to come.

The preliminary injunction does not resolve the underlying case. A final ruling on the constitutionality of the law will come after further proceedings.

By: Politics406 Staff

Filed Under: News

Related Articles:

  • Mexican National Sentenced to Five Years for Smuggling Migrants Across Canadian Border
  • Washington Man Charged With Attempting to Aid Houthis
  • Treasury Targets Alleged Iranian Abuse of Religious Charity Networks
  • What is the best battery backup for every home and budget?
  • Shorthanded Griz fall to Idaho
  • Montana State University’s annual research spending grows 7% to top $300 million for the first time

Primary Sidebar

— Advertisement —

Digital News Updates Logo

Recent News Posts

  • Montana Secures $4.8 Million to Expand Workforce Training in High-Demand Industries
  • UM College of Business Earns Top National Ranking
  • Flathead Valley Community College Approves Contract for New President
  • Mexican National Sentenced to Five Years for Smuggling Migrants Across Canadian Border

Recent Politics Posts

  • Liberal Groups Criticize Idaho Voting Laws Over Registration Requirements
  • Poll: Inflation tops voter concerns, national debt near the bottom
  • Billings City Council Votes to Sell Lampman Park for $834,000 Housing Development
  • White House Report Estimates $49 Trillion Cost of Democratic Socialist Policies

Recent Business Posts

  • How much is the NFL worth? Inside America’s most valuable sports league
  • How American defense companies can stay competitive in today’s global environment
  • Financial officers warn rating agencies about using ESG in state credit ratings
  • Cboe Names Catherine Grover Chief Human Resources Officer

Copyright © 2026 Digital News Updates, All Rights Reserved.