24 F.4th 893
4th Cir.2022Background
- South Carolina’s 2021–2022 appropriations act included Proviso §1.108, forbidding use of state-appropriated funds to require, announce, or enforce school mask mandates.
- Superintendent Spearman issued guidance interpreting the Proviso as prohibiting mask mandates; Attorney General Wilson sued the City of Columbia arguing municipal school-mask ordinances violated the Proviso; the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the Proviso in Wilson and left open limited possibilities for non-state-funded mandates in Richland.
- Two disability-rights organizations and nine parents of disabled public-school students sued seven school districts, the state superintendent, Governor McMaster, and Attorney General Wilson seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Proviso under Title II of the ADA and Section 504, claiming increased COVID risk denied meaningful access to in-person education.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Proviso as to the named defendants; McMaster and Wilson appealed (other defendants did not appeal).
- The Fourth Circuit held the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue Governor McMaster and Attorney General Wilson (focused on traceability and redressability), vacated the injunction insofar as it covered those two defendants, and remanded with instructions to dismiss them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue governor and attorney general | Proviso increases risk to disabled children and denies access to in-person schooling; that injury is traceable to and redressable by enjoining McMaster and Wilson | Plaintiffs cannot show injuries are fairly traceable to McMaster or Wilson or that injunction against them would redress injuries | Plaintiffs lack standing as to McMaster and Wilson; injunction vacated as to them |
| Traceability to Governor McMaster | McMaster’s signing, public advocacy, and executive statements caused enforcement chills | Governor has only a general duty to execute laws and no specific enforcement role for the Proviso | No traceability; general enforcement duty insufficient to confer standing |
| Traceability to Attorney General Wilson | Wilson’s lawsuit against Columbia and public statements created a predictable chilling effect on districts | Wilson has not enforced the Proviso against the districts attended by plaintiffs’ children; threat of enforcement is speculative | Traceability to Wilson insufficient—no credible threat shown that he will enforce the Proviso against plaintiffs’ districts |
| Redressability by enjoining McMaster/Wilson | Enjoining state officers would remove a key obstacle and make district mandates more likely, partially redressing injuries | Even enjoined, many districts have not adopted mandates; injunction against state officials would not compel districts to change policies | Redressability not established as to these two defendants; injunction would not likely redress plaintiffs’ claimed harms against them |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (standing elements and plaintiffs’ burden)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury, causation, redressability framework)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (when state officials may be sued for prospective relief)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (standing where credible threat of enforcement exists)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (redressability and injury standards)
- Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) (predictable effect of government action on third parties relevant to causation)
- Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2001) (governor’s general duty to enforce laws is not alone a basis to sue)
- Wilson ex rel. State v. City of Columbia, 863 S.E.2d 456 (S.C. 2021) (S.C. Supreme Court construing the Proviso and invalidating municipal ordinances)
- Richland Cnty. Sch. Dist. 2 v. Lucas, 862 S.E.2d 920 (S.C. 2021) (S.C. Supreme Court reiterating limits on Proviso and leaving open narrow funding workarounds)
- Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Cheatham, 910 F.3d 751 (4th Cir. 2018) (causation/traceability in standing analysis)
- Deal v. Mercer Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 911 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. 2018) (partial relief can satisfy redressability)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 204 F.3d 149 (4th Cir. 2000) (increased risk as cognizable injury)