Seventeen Republican attorneys general, including South Dakota’s, have sued California over a state law that requires plastic packaging producers to move away from single-use plastics, alleging that the law will raise costs for consumers across the country.

Led by Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, the

complaint

filed Monday in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California challenges California’s Plastics Act. Under the law, which took effect May 1, plastic packaging producers

must reduce single-use plastic

by 25% and ensure all packaging is recyclable or compostable by 2032.

Joining Hilgers in the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. They say the law is an attempt by California “to impose its own policy preferences on the entire nation.”

The law “will cause steep and persistent price increases” on products used daily by consumers in other states, the plaintiffs argue.

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said in a news release that the California law “imposes unreasonable, burdensome requirements on businesses and consumers nationwide.”

The attorneys general also assert that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by interfering with interstate commerce, and that it improperly extends regulatory authority to a private organization. California appointed a nonprofit, the Circular Action Alliance, to help develop, administer and implement the law.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Hilgers said in a news release. “Nebraska is continuing to fight for consumers against California’s overreach.”

Environmental advocacy groups also

sued

California earlier this month, alleging the new regulations “fall short” in meeting the state’s aims of reducing plastic packaging, and that they contain loopholes for producers.

— This story was originally published on southdakotasearchlight.com.

The South Dakota Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at June 25, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from June 25 drawing

03-13-14-34-45, Bonus: 01

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your prize

• Prizes of $100 or less: Can be claimed at any South Dakota Lottery retailer.
• Prizes of $101 or more: Must be claimed from the Lottery. By mail, send a claim form and a signed winning ticket to the Lottery at 711 E. Wells Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501.
• Any jackpot-winning ticket for Dakota Cash or Lotto America, top prize-winning ticket for Lucky for Life, or for the second prizes for Powerball and Mega Millions must be presented in person at a Lottery office. A jackpot-winning Powerball or Mega Millions ticket must be presented in person at the Lottery office in Pierre.

RAPID CITY, S.D. (KOTA) – The South Dakota Supreme Court has upheld the convictions of a Pennington County man sentenced for threatening a Box Elder resident with a handgun during a 2025 home invasion.

In a unanimous decision, the court affirmed the convictions of Chris David Kujawa, who was found guilty of first-degree burglary and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Pennington County jury convicted Kujawa in May 2025, and he was sentenced to concurrent 12-year prison terms.

According to trial testimony, Kujawa forced his way into a Box Elder home, accused the homeowner of stealing property and pointed a handgun at the victim’s head while threatening to kill him. The victim testified Kujawa also threatened his wife.

Kujawa appealed the convictions, arguing the trial court improperly limited questions about the victim’s prior convictions and incorrectly responded to a question from jurors during deliberations.

The Supreme Court rejected those arguments, finding that any error related to the victim’s prior conviction did not affect the outcome of the case and that the judge properly directed jurors to review instructions that accurately stated the law.

“The Supreme Court’s decision affirms the jury’s verdict and recognizes the strength of the evidence presented at trial,” Attorney General Marty Jackley said in a statement.

The Attorney General’s Office represented the state during the appeal.

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.