• 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:

  • DEQ Awards $10.34M to Improve Electricity Resilience in Rural Montana
  • ICE officer in Minnesota-Texas extradition fight is freed from jail
  • UM Announces Summer 2026 Candidates for Graduation
  • Teton Auto Group Expands Into Montana With Bozeman Dealership Acquisition
  • Montana National Guard Soldier Awarded Soldier’s Medal for Heroic Rescue
  • Jackley Commends Fifth Circuit Dismissal of Tren de Aragua Deportation Challenge

Primary Sidebar

— Advertisement —

Digital News Updates Logo

Recent News Posts

  • Nigerian National Sentenced to Nearly Eight Years for Laundering $3.1 Million in Scam Proceeds
  • UM Welcomes Inaugural Class of Physician Associates
  • Judge Halts Construction on Montana’s Proposed Laurel Mental Health Facility
  • South Dakota Taps Three Agencies to Lead State Tourism Marketing Push

Recent Politics Posts

  • Armstrong Appoints Tony Hillig as North Dakota Parks and Recreation Director
  • Cascade County Investigates Signature-Gathering Fraud Tied to Bodnar, Eisenhauer Campaigns
  • Poll: Majority of voters concerned with rise of socialism, communism
  • Knudsen-Led AG Group Targets 13 States in Election Push

Recent Business Posts

  • Montana’s High-Tech Economy Expands as Data Centers Emerge
  • Broadcom, Dell Headline Busy Tech Earnings Week
  • Netflix Stock Rebounds 25% From 2026 Low
  • Walmart to Pay $50 Million in Opioid Settlement

Copyright © 2026 Digital News Updates, All Rights Reserved.