South Dakota law banning abortion advertisements faces free speech challenge 

South Dakota may not be able to ban advertisements for abortion, which is illegal in the state, after a federal district judge issued a preliminary ruling in a case involving First Amendment protections.

South Dakota’s House Bill 1274, enacted in March, prohibits “the dispensing, distribution, sale or advertisement of certain articles or things for purposes of an unlawful abortion.”

After the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, South Dakota’s trigger law, which outlaws nearly all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, took effect. 

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley filed a complaint against Mayday Health over its abortion advertisements in December 2025. The New York-based nonprofit, founded in 2022, advertises the availability of abortion pills but does not manufacture or distribute the drugs, according to the Associated Press. In March, the company settled the case and agreed to remove abortion-related placards in South Dakota, the AP reported.

After that agreement, Mayday Health filed another lawsuit in May against South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden and Jackley, arguing that House Bill 1274 violates its First Amendment right to free speech.

“Information should not be banned,” Jim Leach, the attorney representing Mayday Health, said, according to the AP. “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.”

U.S. District Judge Camela C. Theeler of South Dakota, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2024, ruled Friday that the nonprofit is likely to prevail because the state did not demonstrate “the law both served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored,” the AP reported.

Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, the primary sponsor of House Bill 1274, called the law “constitutionally significant” because of its connection to the First Amendment.

“It’s not surprising to me that the law would be challenged. I think any restrictions on abortion are bound to have pushback,” Hughes said.

Hughes said the law reflects South Dakota’s authority to prohibit abortion and regulate its promotion.

“Ultimately, the federal courts are going to have to determine to what extent states can restrict or limit, or ban abortion,” he said. “I think the way things stand now, South Dakota has simply exercised its sovereign right as a state to determine that abortions are illegal, except to preserve the life of the mother.”

Jackley, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the state’s lone congressional seat, said he “respectfully disagree[s]” with the judge’s ruling and will continue to defend the law as the case proceeds.

“The case on the permanent injunction will still be tried with additional discovery and information about Mayday’s activities and representations. Protecting and defending innocent life is and remains important to our Legislature, Governor, Attorney General and citizens,” he said in a statement.

Rhoden, a Republican, also defended the law despite the preliminary ruling.

“I remain confident that our law is not only constitutional – it’s vitally important,” he said.