Defending Disclosure Laws in South Dakota (Students for Life Action v. Jackley)

South Dakota law requires groups that fund certain election-related advertisements to disclose on the ad itself who paid for it, including the names of significant donors. This kind of on-ad disclaimer helps voters know who is behind the political messages they see, so they can properly evaluate the speaker’s credibility and motives.

Students for Life Action, an advocacy organization, sued South Dakota's attorney general and secretary of state, arguing that the law's disclaimer requirement violates the First Amendment. The organization brought both a facial challenge — arguing the law is unconstitutional in all applications — and an as-applied challenge specific to its own advocacy.

The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota rejected the facial challenge on the merits in August 2024. In February 2026, the court also ruled against Students for Life Action’s as-applied challenge, finding that the organization lacked standing to bring the case forward and that the law itself satisfied constitutional scrutiny on the merits.

Students for Life Action appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief in support of the state defendants, explaining that on-ad donor disclaimers advance the government’s interest in an informed electorate. Moreover, the brief argues that South Dakota’s law is constitutional, as it meets the level of constitutional scrutiny that applies to disclosure and disclaimer requirements.