Mayday Health v. Jackley
Issue
Whether the First Amendment bars a state attorney general from sending a cease-and-desist letter and initiating retaliatory state enforcement proceedings against a nonprofit organization that publishes truthful information about abortion pill procurement, and whether a federal court may enjoin such proceedings notwithstanding *Younger v. Harris* abstention doctrine.
What Happened
Mayday Health, a New York-based nonprofit that publishes information about reproductive healthcare including abortion pill providers' prices, locations, and delivery times, filed suit against the South Dakota Attorney General alleging First Amendment retaliation. The defendant opposed Mayday's preliminary injunction motion on grounds that Mayday's speech is commercial or encourages illegal activity, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction, and that *Younger v. Harris* requires abstention in deference to pending South Dakota state enforcement proceedings under SDCL § 37-24-23. In this reply brief, Mayday argues its speech is noncommercial and constitutionally protected under *NIFLA v. James* and *Bigelow v. Virginia*, that personal jurisdiction is proper under CPLR § 302(a)(3) because the first effects of the defendant's tortious conduct were felt in New York, and that *Younger* abstention is unavailable under the Second Circuit's *Cullen v. Fliegner* exception when state proceedings are initiated to retaliate for or deter protected First Amendment activity.
Why It Matters
The case advances the "jawboning" doctrine by testing the limits of state attorney general authority to use cease-and-desist letters and retaliatory enforcement actions to suppress politically disfavored but constitutionally protected online speech, and it raises a significant question about whether *Younger* abstention can shield such proceedings from federal judicial review when the proceedings are allegedly pretextual.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?