Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mark and Jane Thompson, residents of Aiken County and the City of Aiken, paid road maintenance fees levied by both the county and city for several years. After the City of Aiken rescinded its fee in 2021 and agreed to reimburse fees paid after that date, the Thompsons filed suit against various city and county officials and entities. They sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinances imposing the fees were invalid, reimbursement of unlawfully collected fees, damages under section 8-21-30 of the South Carolina Code, and relief for alleged violations of their constitutional rights.The case was first heard in the Circuit Court for Aiken County. The Thompsons voluntarily dismissed some claims and parties before and during the hearing. The trial court ultimately dismissed the remaining claims, finding that the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act (RPA) deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction, that section 12-60-80(C) barred class actions against political subdivisions, that section 8-21-30 did not apply to the road maintenance fees or the actions of the county treasurer, and that sovereign immunity barred the unjust enrichment claim. The constitutional claim was dismissed by stipulation. The Thompsons appealed, and the Supreme Court of South Carolina certified the appeal before the Court of Appeals could rule.The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the road maintenance fees at issue were not “taxes” under the RPA, so the RPA did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the individual or class claims. The catchall provision of section 12-60-80(C) does not bar class actions against political subdivisions unless the claim concerns value-based property taxes. The court affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment, section 8-21-30, and constitutional claims, but reversed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment claim and remanded for further proceedings on that claim, both individually and as a class. View "Thompson v. Killian" on Justia Law

Gulfstream Café, Inc. owns a restaurant within the Marlin Quay Planned Development (PD) in Georgetown County, South Carolina. The PD includes a shared parking lot, with Gulfstream holding a nonexclusive easement for sixty-two spaces and owning seventeen additional spaces. In 2016, Palmetto Industrial Development, LLC purchased the marina and parking lot, demolished the existing structures, and sought approval from the Georgetown County Council to build a new restaurant. After several iterations and legal challenges, the Council approved a final plan (Ordinance 2018-40) for the new restaurant, which increased evening parking demand and allegedly harmed Gulfstream’s business.Previously, Gulfstream challenged the approval process and the impact on its easement rights in the Circuit Court for Georgetown County. The court held a bench trial and ruled in favor of the County, the County Council, and Councilmember Steve Goggans on all claims, including substantive and procedural due process, takings, inverse condemnation, and alleged impropriety in the approval process. Gulfstream appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the case, applying a limited scope of review for factual findings and de novo review for legal and constitutional issues. The Court held that Gulfstream’s easement was nonexclusive and had not been deprived by the ordinance, that the County’s actions had a rational basis, and that the ordinance did not constitute a per se or regulatory taking under the Penn Central test. The Court also found no procedural due process violation, as Gulfstream received notice and an opportunity to be heard, and determined that Councilmember Goggans’ prior involvement did not invalidate the ordinance. The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in all respects. View "The Gulfstream Café v. Georgetown County" on Justia Law

Following the 2020 census, South Carolina was required to redraw its congressional districts to ensure population equality among the seven districts. The most significant changes involved Districts 1 and 6, with District 1 being overpopulated and District 6 underpopulated. The redistricting process, led by Senator Chip Campsen, resulted in a plan that increased the Republican advantage in District 1 by unifying certain counties and shifting precincts with high Democratic vote shares into District 6. The plan was enacted in 2022 and used in subsequent elections.Previously, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the plan in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U.S. 1 (2024), focusing on claims of racial gerrymandering. The Supreme Court found that the legislature’s primary intent was partisan advantage, not racial discrimination, and held that claims of partisan gerrymandering are nonjusticiable under the U.S. Constitution. After the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their remaining federal claims, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina filed a petition in the Supreme Court of South Carolina, arguing that the plan constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under several provisions of the South Carolina Constitution.The Supreme Court of South Carolina, exercising its original jurisdiction, held that claims of partisan gerrymandering present a nonjusticiable political question under the state constitution. The court found that South Carolina’s constitution and statutes do not contain provisions that prohibit or limit partisan gerrymandering, nor do they provide judicially manageable standards for adjudicating such claims. The court concluded that the authority to draw congressional districts is textually committed to the legislature and denied the League’s request for relief, dismissing the claims with prejudice. View "League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was arrested and indicted for the murder of an individual named Donald Blake, with the allegation being that the murder was committed by blunt force trauma. At trial, the court instructed the jury on both murder and, over the defendant’s objection, the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. After more than five hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on murder and guilty on voluntary manslaughter. During jury polling, the eleventh juror indicated that the guilty verdict for manslaughter was not her true verdict, explaining she had been pressured by other jurors and maintained a not guilty stance. The trial judge, without instructing the jury to continue deliberations and over the objections of both parties, questioned the dissenting juror individually and then declared a mistrial.Following the mistrial, the State sought to retry the defendant for murder. The defendant moved for habeas corpus and for entry of a verdict of acquittal, arguing that jeopardy had attached to the murder charge because the jury had returned a final not guilty verdict. The Circuit Court denied relief, holding that jeopardy had not attached and that the State could retry the defendant for murder. The defendant’s appeal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals was dismissed as not immediately appealable, and his petitions for supersedeas and habeas corpus were denied. The Supreme Court of South Carolina then issued a common law writ of certiorari to review whether the State could retry the defendant for murder, and later requested briefing on the voluntary manslaughter charge as well.The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that jeopardy attached to both the murder and voluntary manslaughter charges. The Court found the not guilty verdict on murder was final and that the trial court’s sua sponte declaration of a mistrial, without manifest necessity and without instructing the jury to continue deliberations, barred retrial on both charges under double jeopardy principles. The Court reversed the lower court’s ruling, holding the State may not retry the defendant for either offense. View "The State v. Erb" on Justia Law

Meredith Logan Whitehurst was cited for violating the Town of Sullivan's Island's Disorderly Conduct Ordinance after loudly berating her Uber driver with profanity and racial and xenophobic epithets at nearly 2:00 a.m. The driver, an Egyptian-born immigrant, testified that Whitehurst's loud phone conversation disturbed his driving, and when he asked her to be quiet, she began mocking and cursing him. After stopping the car and asking Whitehurst and her friend to exit, Whitehurst continued to yell offensive remarks at the driver. The police were called, and Whitehurst was cited for public disorderly conduct.Whitehurst was tried by a jury in the Town's Municipal Court, which found her guilty and fined her $1,040. She moved for a new trial, which was denied, and then appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the conviction. Whitehurst then appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, arguing that the Ordinance violated her First Amendment rights, was unconstitutionally vague, and that the trial court erred in various procedural rulings, including denying her motion to suppress the Uber video.The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court held that the Ordinance was content-neutral and served the Town's significant interest in controlling noise levels, thus not infringing on Whitehurst's First Amendment rights. The Court also found that the Ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague, as it provided fair notice of the prohibited conduct and included a scienter requirement. Additionally, the Court deemed Whitehurst's arguments regarding the multiple subsections of the Ordinance and the motion to suppress the Uber video as conclusory and abandoned due to lack of supporting authority. View "Whitehurst v. Town of Sullivan's Island" on Justia Law

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and other appellants challenged the constitutionality of the 2023 South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act. The Act prohibits most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which the appellants argued occurs only after approximately nine weeks of pregnancy. The State contended that a fetal heartbeat is detectable at approximately six weeks of pregnancy.The federal district court initially enjoined the 2021 version of the Act, but the injunction was lifted following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The South Carolina Supreme Court later declared the 2021 Act unconstitutional under the state constitution. In response, the General Assembly revised the Act in 2023, maintaining the same definition of "fetal heartbeat." The circuit court ruled in favor of the State, and Planned Parenthood appealed.The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that the term "fetal heartbeat" refers to the detection of cardiac activity, which can be identified by medical professionals using diagnostic technology such as a transvaginal ultrasound. The Court determined that this cardiac activity typically occurs at approximately six weeks of pregnancy. The Court's interpretation was based on legislative history, medical evidence, and statutory construction principles, concluding that the General Assembly intended to ban most abortions at this early stage of pregnancy. View "Planned Parenthood v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Intellectual Capitol, Inc., JMI Sports, and JMIS College, LLC (Appellants) obtained contracts through the state procurement process with the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (WCC) and Clemson University (Respondents). Disputes arose under these contracts, leading Respondents to file Requests for Resolution of Contract Controversy with the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) for the State of South Carolina. Appellants then filed separate declaratory judgment actions in circuit court, challenging the constitutionality of section 11-35-4230 of the South Carolina Code, which grants the CPO exclusive jurisdiction over state contract disputes.The circuit court granted Respondents' motions to dismiss the declaratory judgment actions, ruling that section 11-35-4230 placed exclusive jurisdiction over the State's contract disputes with the CPO. The court also dismissed Appellants' constitutional claims as premature due to their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellants appealed this decision.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment actions, but modified the reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the contracts between Appellants and Respondents contained a clear choice-of-forum provision, which unambiguously gave the CPO exclusive authority to resolve disputes. By agreeing to this provision, Appellants waived their right to have their disputes decided by a court of the unified judicial system. Consequently, there was no justiciable controversy, rendering the constitutional challenge to section 11-35-4230 a purely academic exercise. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment actions, as there were no legal rights at issue. View "Intellectual Capital, Inc. v. Chief Procurement Officer" on Justia Law

In 2004, Jason McSwain, a former teacher, pled guilty to two counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. After serving his prison sentence, he registered as a sex offender as required by South Carolina's Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA). Initially, SORA mandated lifetime registration for all sex offenders. In 2022, the General Assembly amended SORA to implement a three-tier system based on the severity of the offense, with tier II offenders, like McSwain, required to register for 25 years before seeking removal.McSwain applied for removal from the registry in 2022, but the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) denied his application as premature. He then filed a motion in the circuit court, arguing that the tier system and mandatory wait times violated his right to substantive due process. The circuit court denied his motion, finding that the amendments to SORA were rationally related to the government's interest in public safety and law enforcement.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the circuit court's decision. The Court found that the tiered-registration system and corresponding mandatory-minimum time periods for registration were rationally related to SORA's legislative purposes of protecting the public and aiding law enforcement. The Court emphasized that the amendments brought SORA in line with federal law and the approach taken by a majority of states. Consequently, the Court held that McSwain failed to establish that SORA violated his right to substantive due process and affirmed the circuit court's decision. View "The State v. McSwain" on Justia Law

Rashawn Vertez Carter was involved in a violent home invasion and robbery in Aiken, South Carolina, on May 9, 2015. After the crime, law enforcement officers used Carter's real-time cell-site location information from his cell-service provider, T-Mobile, to track him down without obtaining a search warrant. Carter was subsequently arrested and made incriminating statements during interviews with the police.At trial, Carter moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his real-time cell-site location information, arguing that it was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and the South Carolina Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the information gathered did not constitute a search under either constitution. The jury convicted Carter of burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping, and illegal possession of a weapon, but acquitted him of the alleged sexual assault. Carter appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applied and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule also justified the officers' actions.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed Carter's convictions. The court did not address whether a search occurred or if the exigent circumstances exception applied. Instead, it focused on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, concluding that the officers acted in good faith reliance on the federal Stored Communications Act, which allowed the disclosure of customer records in emergencies. The court held that the good-faith exception precluded the suppression of evidence obtained through Carter's real-time cell-site location information, as the officers reasonably believed their actions were lawful under the statute. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the 2023 Act No. 8 (S. 39), known as the Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF) Act, which establishes a fund to provide scholarships for qualifying educational expenses, including private school tuition. Petitioners argue that the Act violates South Carolina's constitutional prohibition against using public funds for the direct benefit of private educational institutions.The lower courts did not review this case; it was accepted directly by the South Carolina Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction. Petitioners sought an injunction and declaratory judgment, claiming the Act violated several provisions of the South Carolina Constitution, including Article XI, Sections 2, 3, and 4, and Article X, Sections 5 and 11.The South Carolina Supreme Court held that portions of the Act violate the state constitution's prohibition against using public funds for the direct benefit of private educational institutions. The court found that the ESTF funds are public funds and that using these funds for private school tuition constitutes a direct benefit to private educational institutions, which is unconstitutional under Article XI, Section 4. The court severed and declared unconstitutional the provisions of the Act that allowed payments from ESTF scholarships for tuition and fees at private educational institutions. The court enjoined the Department of Education from disbursing ESTF scholarships for these purposes. The court's decision was guided by the principle that legislative policy must conform to constitutional mandates, and it emphasized the importance of adhering to the plain meaning of constitutional text. View "Candace Eidson v. South Carolina Dept. of Education" on Justia Law