Judge blocks South Dakota abortion advertising ban against nonprofit
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota cannot enforce its abortion advertising ban against a reproductive health nonprofit, a federal judge ruled Friday.
U.S. District Judge Camela C. Theeler issued a preliminary injunction blocking South Dakota from enforcing the recently adopted state law against New York-based Mayday Health and plaintiff Nancy Turbak Berry. The judge said the nonprofit was likely to win the case.
Signed in March, the law prohibits the distribution and advertisement for unlawful abortion services, like abortion pills, in South Dakota. Friday’s ruling does not strike down the law.
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in May against Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden and Attorney General Marty Jackley, arguing the abortion advertising ban violates freedom of speech. In the Friday ruling, the judge wrote that the state did not attempt to prove the law met strict scrutiny — that the law both served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored.
“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.”
Abortion has been illegal in South Dakota since the reversal of Roe v. Wade, except in cases where the life of the pregnant person is at risk. Administering, prescribing or procuring an abortion in the state is a felony offense.
Mayday Health, which was formed in 2022, advertises about the legality and availability of abortion pills, but it does not sell or distribute any medication. It advertised abortion pills in South Dakota in December 2025 through placards at gas stations that read, “Pregnant? Don't want to be? Learn More at Mayday.Health.”
Jackley then filed a complaint against Mayday Health for the advertisements, and the two reached an agreement in March for the nonprofit to remove the placards.
Rhoden said in a statement Friday that he was disappointed with the ruling but noted that it is only a preliminary decision.
“I remain confident that our law is not only constitutional — it’s vitally important,” he said.
