Wall Drug: Legendary Tourist Stop or a Monopoly on Main Street?

Wall Drug is a staple of South Dakota tourism. For decades, the quirky roadside stop has lured travelers off I-90 with promises of free ice water, oversized jackrabbits, and an Old West shopping experience. However, behind the billboards and souvenir shops lies a deeper controversy: the unchecked power of Wall Drug’s owner, Rick Hustead, and his influence over the town of Wall, its government, and even statewide business dealings.

A recent legal battle over Love’s Travel Stop has shined a light on the lengths to which Wall Drug—and its politically connected owner—will go to maintain dominance. The case raises troubling questions about conflicts of interest, abuse of power, and whether supporting Wall Drug is indirectly supporting a system that stifles competition.

Wall Drug’s Rise to Power

Wall Drug began as a small pharmacy in 1931, struggling to attract customers in a remote town of just 231 people. The now-famous billboard campaign promising “Free Ice Water” turned the business into a tourist sensation. Over the decades, Wall Drug expanded into a sprawling complex featuring restaurants, souvenir shops, and even a chapel.

The success of Wall Drug transformed the small town of Wall into a must-stop destination. However, this dominance came with an increasing level of control over the local economy. Today, the business owns a significant portion of commercial real estate in the area, directly influencing which businesses thrive and which struggle to get a foothold.

Rick Hustead, current owner of Wall Drug, has leveraged his position to consolidate power—not just in business but in local government. As president of the Wall City Council, Hustead plays a key role in zoning, business permits, and city planning decisions. This intersection of business and politics became highly problematic when Love’s Travel Stops attempted to build a new location in Wall.

Blocking Competition: The Love’s Travel Stop Battle

In 2020, Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores sought to establish a location in Wall, a prime spot along I-90 for truckers and tourists alike. Love’s proposed building a travel center offering fuel, food, and rest services, promising jobs and additional tax revenue for the city.

However, the Wall City Council, led by Hustead and two other local business owners, voted against the necessary rezoning and building permits. The reason? Hustead himself owns a gas station at the same interstate exit—one that would have faced significant competition from Love’s.

Despite this glaring conflict of interest, Hustead and the two other business-owning council members refused to recuse themselves from the vote. This effectively blocked Love’s from entering the market and protected their own businesses from competition.

Love’s and One Shot, LLC, filed a lawsuit, arguing that the council’s decision was unfair and violated ethical governance. The case would eventually make its way to the South Dakota Supreme Court.

The Legal Battle and Supreme Court Ruling

Initially, the Seventh Circuit Court ruled against the City of Wall, finding that the council members had engaged in a clear conflict of interest. The court ordered the city to reconsider Love’s application and, when the council failed to comply, held the city in contempt.

However, the South Dakota Supreme Court later reversed this ruling.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the lower court had the authority to order the city to reconsider Love’s permit but determined that it overstepped by issuing the permit itself. The court ruled that the city should have been given an opportunity to comply rather than being directly forced into approval.

As a result, Love’s was left in limbo, with no permit and no way forward unless the same city council—still led by Hustead—chose to act differently. The full ruling can be read here.

Unchecked Power and a Town Held Hostage

The Love’s case highlights the dangers of unchecked power in small-town governance. When business owners control the very institutions meant to regulate them, competition becomes impossible, and local economies suffer.

Wall Drug’s influence extends beyond city hall. Hustead and his allies hold sway in regional business dealings, using their position to dictate which businesses succeed and which never get a chance. By blocking Love’s, Wall Drug didn’t just prevent a competitor—it prevented economic growth that could have benefited the entire town.

The case also raises ethical concerns about governance in South Dakota. When high-profile business owners can simultaneously control city government and make decisions that directly benefit themselves, the integrity of local democracy is called into question.

Why This Matters to Travelers

For decades, Wall Drug has built its brand as a fun, family-friendly stop on I-90. But beneath the surface, it represents something much larger: the dangers of monopolistic control in small communities.

Visitors who spend money at Wall Drug are directly supporting a business that has used political influence to crush competition. While the cowboy kitsch and photo ops may be appealing, it’s worth asking: is it right to support a business that has worked to prevent economic opportunities for others?

The Love’s Travel Stop controversy isn’t just about one gas station—it’s about the way unchecked power can shape a town’s future. Until Wall Drug and its owner are held accountable, the town of Wall will remain under the control of a single business empire.

Next time you pass through Wall, consider whether your dollars are supporting a local economy—or just reinforcing one company’s dominance.