Federal judge blocks South Dakota abortion advertising ban

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked a South Dakota law that prohibits abortion advertising.

Key Takeaways:

• A federal judge has blocked a South Dakota law prohibiting abortion advertising.

• The law was passed earlier this year in response to advertisements placed within the state by Mayday Health, despite the state's law protecting preborn children from abortion.

• Mayday Health sued South Dakota over its law, leading to the preliminary injunction.

The Backstory:

In December 2025, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued a cease and desist letter to Mayday Health, which had placed ads for the abortion pill at gas stations around the state. South Dakota law protects preborn children from abortion and prohibits abortion pill distribution.

What followed was a months-long, back-and-forth legal dispute, with Jackley maintaining that Mayday was violating South Dakota laws, and Mayday arguing that its advertisements were protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.

In March, the state was prompted to pass new legislation prohibiting the "dispensing, distribution, sale, or advertisement of certain articles or things for purposes of an unlawful abortion..." That law prompted Mayday to file a federal lawsuit in May.

The Details:

U.S. District Judge Camela C. Theeler responded to that lawsuit on July 17, issuing a preliminary injunction, which means that South Dakota cannot enforce its law prohibiting abortion advertising.

Though the case will continue through the court, Theeler indicated her belief that Mayday is likely to win.

“Information should not be banned,” said Jim Leach, the attorney representing Mayday Health. “And the state wants to ban information about abortion. This ruling says the state cannot ban information about abortion, no matter what you think about abortion or anything else.”

South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden expressed disappointment in the ruling, but noted it was not final, saying:

“While I am disappointed by today's ruling, it is important to remember that this is only a preliminary decision. The court has not issued a final ruling on the constitutionality of South Dakota's law. South Dakota has a long-standing commitment to protecting both moms and unborn babies, and House Bill 1274 reflects the will of the people through their elected representatives. I remain confident that our law is not only constitutional — it’s vitally important."

Commentary:

When the Biden Administration FDA chose to remove safeguards, permanently allowing mail-order distribution of the abortion pill in 2023, it led to the current state-by-state legal wrangling.

Though federal Comstock Laws bar the mailing of abortion drugs for the purpose of ending the life of preborn children, these laws remain unenforced by federal authorities, leading pro-abortion states to pass laws protecting individuals who mail abortion drugs from their states into states where abortion is restricted or illegal.

Certain states have filed suit, pointing out that pro-life states are therefore left with an inability to enforce their own laws,while pro-abortion states trample their sovereignty by offering legal cover to those who break the law.

The Bottom Line:

In a separate statement, Jackley promised to continue to defend the state's law.

“While we respectfully disagree, the case on the permanent injunction will still be tried with additional discovery and information about Mayday’s activities and representations," Jackley said. "Protecting and defending innocent life is and remains important to our Legislature, Governor, Attorney General and citizens.”