Charleston County School District v. Harrell
393 S.C. 552
| S.C. | 2011Background
- Charleston County School District challenged Act 189 (2005) as unconstitutional special legislation targeting Charleston County charter schools.
- Act 189 Section 5A forbids charging rent to charter schools; Section 5B imposes related limitations; it applied only to Charleston County but did not amend the Charter Schools Act.
- Charter Schools Act governs charter schools and sponsor districts broadly; district sought declaratory judgment that Act 189 conflicts with the Act and state constitution.
- Circuit court granted Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, and dismissed the Governor as a party, holding Act 189 constitutional and Governor lacking nexus.
- School District alleged Act 189 is a special provision in a general law; argued Charter Schools Act is a general law applicable statewide.
- This Court reverses in part: Act 189 is unconstitutional as special legislation, but affirms dismissal of the Governor and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Act 189 unconstitutional as special legislation? | School District: Act 189 singles out Charleston County with no rational basis. | Respondents: Act 189 falls within legislative discretion; not improper special law. | Yes; Act 189 unconstitutional as special legislation. |
| Is Act 189 a valid special provision in a general law? | School District: charter-scholars law is general; Act 189 creates unlawful classification. | Respondents: deference to legislature; possible valid special provision in general law. | No; insufficient rational basis for a special provision in this context. |
| Did the circuit court err in considering matters outside the pleadings? | School District: court relied on external facts not in complaint. | Respondents: factual context aids interpretation; limited to pleadings for 12(b)(6). | Yes; court erred in considering outside pleadings. |
| Was Act 189 superseded by the 2006 amendments to the Charter Schools Act? | School District: amendments do not validate Act 189's selective application. | Respondents: amendments may render Act 189 moot or subsumed. | Proceedings remanded; no final ruling on supersedure at this stage. |
| Was the Governor properly dismissed as a party? | School District: Governor has broad executive powers; should be defendant in constitutional challenges. | Respondents: no nexus shown between Governor and Act 189; proper to dismiss. | Yes; Governor properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kizer v. Clark, 360 S.C. 86 (2004) (framework for distinguishing general vs. special laws in SC)
- Horry County v. Horry County Higher Educ. Com'n, 306 S.C. 416 (1991) (rational basis for local legislation; validity of special provisions)
- McElveen v. Stokes, 240 S.C. 1 (1962) (education matters receive broad legislative discretion)
- Smythe v. Stroman, 251 S.C. 277 (1968) (local laws in education context; tests for validity of special laws)
- Med. Soc'y of S.C. v. Med. Univ. of S.C., 334 S.C. 270 (1999) (deference to legislature in evaluating local laws; stringent standard to strike)