• 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:

  • 4 Earn ‘Grizzly of the Last Decade’ Honor from UM Alumni Association
  • War Department Awards $86M to Develop Laser Weapons
  • Gordon Supports Additional Funds to Wyoming Communities
  • Brown Denies $18 Million in Unjustified Insurance Increases
  • Billings Police Chief Rich St. John to Retire After 20 Years
  • Knudsen Reports Rise in Meth, Cocaine Seizures; Fentanyl Seizures Decline

Primary Sidebar

— Advertisement —

Digital News Updates Logo

Recent News Posts

  • Knudsen Awards Grants to Support Montana Children’s Advocacy Centers
  • Court Blocks SD Abortion Pill Ad Ban
  • Montana Labor Department Lands $800K Grant to Expand Apprenticeships
  • Sheehy Sworn Into U.S. Navy Reserve by President Trump

Recent Politics Posts

  • Independent Candidates Deepen Democratic Divide in Montana
  • Daines Pushes for Crypto Tax Framework
  • Court Narrows Restraining Order Against MTGOP Bylaws
  • Gulf lawmakers aim to extend state borders to 9 miles offshore

Recent Business Posts

  • Forbes Names Stockman Bank Montana’s #1 Best-In-State Bank for 2026
  • Costco Posts Strong June Sales as Membership Model Continues to Deliver
  • No Delays for Nvidia: Jensen Huang Says Rubin Is Right on Track
  • Stocks End Week Lower as Tech Sell-Off Drags on Markets

Copyright © 2026 Digital News Updates, All Rights Reserved.