Published July 16, 2026 at 11:00 AM ET · Updated July 20, 2026 at 2:07 PM ET
Court rules South Dakota cannot block a website telling women about abortion pills
2 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
A court ruled that South Dakota cannot block a website that provides information to women about abortion pills. The decision protects the website's ability to share this information.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 4 d ago, when Rolling Stone reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets, including 1 wire/mainstream feed. The most recent report came 14 hr ago from Reason. Verification tier: Confirmed — reported independently by wire/mainstream and conservative outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Blocking the website is the state directly suppressing a speaker. Bantam Books v. Sullivan held a state's informal system to suppress objectionable material is an unconstitutional prior restraint even without formal enforcement power, and National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo reaffirmed that line. A state cannot suppress a website for its published information merely because it objects to it.
Bantam Books v. Sullivan 372 U.S. 58 (1963)
Vote: 8-1 · Opinion: Brennan
A state commission's system of informal notices identifying 'objectionable' books — phrased virtually as orders, reasonably understood as such, and backed by police follow-up visits — is a system of informal censorship operating as an unconstitutional prior restraint under the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the Commission's lack of formal enforcement power. Key language: 'People do not lightly disregard public officers' thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them.' This is the doctrinal foundation of the modern jawboning cases.
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo 602 U.S. 175 (2024)
Vote: 9-0 · Opinion: Sotomayor
Reaffirming Bantam Books: a government official violates the First Amendment by coercing regulated third parties to terminate relationships with a speaker in order to punish or suppress the speaker's advocacy. The NRA plausibly alleged this. Persuasion and government speech remain permissible; the line is coercion, assessed in context using guideposts including (1) word choice and tone, (2) the official's regulatory authority over the recipient, (3) whether the communication was perceived as a threat, and (4) the recipients' reaction.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
