• 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:

  • Jackley: South Dakota to Receive Settlement Over Car Loans
  • Montana State opens new nursing education building in Billings
  • Treasury Sanctions Iranian Crypto Exchange Tied to IRGC Funding
  • Montana Historical Society Launches New Book Prize
  • FCC Clears Gulf Investment in Paramount-Warner Deal
  • Montana Unemployment Holds at 3.2% in August

Primary Sidebar

— Advertisement —

Digital News Updates Logo

Recent News Posts

  • Federal Jury Convicts Clinic Owner in TRICARE Fraud and Kickback Scheme
  • Gordon Praises Peabody’s Wyoming Coal Export to Vietnam
  • Montana Highway Patrol Commissions Seven New Troopers
  • White House App Tops Apple News Rankings

Recent Politics Posts

  • Attorneys General Urge Congress to Preserve Women’s Sports Protections in College Sports Bill
  • Outside Spending Intensifies as Montana Senate Race Enters Final Stretch
  • Crow Tribe Water Rights Bill Heads to President’s Desk
  • Montana Supreme Court Reverses Course on Butte Data Center Ballot Initiative

Recent Business Posts

  • Spectrum Expands Rural Broadband Network in Cascade County
  • Micron Earnings in Focus as AI Memory Demand Drives Expectations Higher
  • Stocks Gain for the Week as AI Rally Offsets Rising Bond Yields
  • Montana Unemployment Holds at 3.2% in August

Copyright © 2026 Digital News Updates, All Rights Reserved.