The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will reconsider whether South Dakota can require citizen ballot-question petitions to be filed nine months before a general election, reopening a First Amendment fight over how long organizers may gather signatures.

The court granted rehearing by all active judges after a three-judge panel upheld a permanent injunction against House Bill 1184. South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said Friday that the 11-member court will hear arguments in St. Louis in January 2027. The rehearing order vacates the panel decision, but it does not by itself make the February deadline enforceable; the lower court’s injunction remains the operative judgment unless the courts separately change or stay it.

The dispute concerns a 2025 law that moved the election-year filing date for initiated laws and constitutional amendments from May to February. South Dakota had adopted a six-month deadline after the Eighth Circuit struck down an earlier one-year deadline in 2023. HB 1184 restored three of those months, giving organizers nine months before the election to submit their petitions.

Dakotans for Health and organizer Rick Weiland challenged the new deadline. They argued that cutting three months from the circulation period burdened political speech and association. A federal district judge agreed and permanently blocked the law. In August, a divided appellate panel affirmed that ruling, holding that the state had not supplied evidence connecting the extra three months to its stated interest in resolving petition litigation before Election Day.

The panel majority accepted for argument’s sake that pre-election litigation could be an important regulatory interest. It nevertheless said the record showed that many challenges would still extend beyond the election and that South Dakota courts can invalidate measures afterward. Judge James Loken dissented, arguing that more time would improve the odds of resolving challenges before voters cast ballots and that federal courts should give states wider latitude over initiative procedures.

The full court’s decision to rehear the case removes that panel opinion as precedent while the appeal proceeds. The en banc order does not forecast which side will prevail. It means all active judges, rather than the original three-judge panel, will review the dispute.

The practical stakes extend beyond a date on the calendar. South Dakota requires petition sponsors to collect thousands of valid signatures before a measure can reach the statewide ballot. The secretary of state’s 2026 ballot-question guidance listed a May 5 deadline while noting that the date remained subject to litigation. Independent coverage by South Dakota Searchlight reported that the en banc grant vacated the panel ruling and set the case on a path toward January argument.

Because the 2026 filing window has passed, the rehearing’s direct effect is likely to fall on future election cycles. The eventual ruling will determine whether South Dakota may again move the submission deadline to February or must retain a later filing date that gives initiative sponsors a longer circulation period.