A federal judge has ruled that South Dakota cannot enforce a newly signed law that bans advertising for abortion pills against Mayday Health, a New York-based nonprofit that provides information about medication abortion.
U.S. District Judge Camela C. Theeler issued a preliminary injunction Friday blocking South Dakota from enforcing the state law against Mayday Health and Nancy Turbak Berry, a former Democratic South Dakota lawmaker. The judge found that the nonprofit was likely to win the case and noted that the state did not attempt to prove the law met the legal standard of strict scrutiny, which requires that a law serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
The law, signed by Republican Governor Larry Rhoden in March, prohibits the distribution and advertisement of articles intended to produce an abortion, including abortion pills. Violations are felonies punishable by up to two years in prison and fines of up to $4,000. The law was set to take effect July 1.
Mayday Health was formed in 2022 and provides information about the legality and availability of abortion pills, though it does not sell or distribute any medication. The dispute began when the nonprofit placed advertisements at gas stations around South Dakota in December 2025 that read “Pregnant? Don’t want to be?” with a link to Mayday.Health. Attorney General Marty Jackley sent a cease-and-desist letter threatening legal action, and the two parties settled their competing lawsuits in March with Mayday agreeing to remove the advertisements.
However, after Rhoden signed the new law in March, Mayday Health and Turbak Berry filed a federal lawsuit in May arguing the advertising prohibition violated the First Amendment. At the center of the dispute was whether information about abortion pills constitutes protected speech or criminal activity. The attorneys for both sides presented their arguments during a hearing in Rapid City in June.
The lawsuit named Turbak Berry as a plaintiff because she alleged the law would prevent her from wearing a sweatshirt featuring Mayday’s mission and website address. Turbak Berry previously led a group supporting a failed 2024 ballot initiative that would have restored abortion rights in the state. She said the law was an attempt to control what women in South Dakota can see and hear.
Abortion has been illegal in South Dakota since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, except when necessary to preserve the pregnant person’s life. Administering, prescribing or procuring an abortion in the state is a felony offense.
Rhoden expressed disappointment with the judge’s ruling in a statement Friday but noted it was only a preliminary decision. “I remain confident that our law is not only constitutional — it’s vitally important,” he said. Jackley vowed to continue defending what he described as the state’s interest in protecting life.
The preliminary injunction means the law cannot be enforced while the litigation continues. This is a significant development in South Dakota’s ongoing efforts to restrict abortion access and information about abortion pills following the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade. Similar legal battles are underway in other states, with some attorneys general challenging whether information about abortion pills can be restricted on First Amendment grounds.
The case reflects a broader national debate over who has the right to control and restrict information about abortion and abortion pills, particularly in the context of medication abortion, which now accounts for the majority of abortions in the United States.