862 S.E.2d 920
S.C.2021Background
- Petitioners: Richland County School District Two and parent Malika Stokes (on behalf of three children); Respondents: Speaker Lucas, Senate President Peeler, and Superintendent Spearman. The Court exercised original jurisdiction.
- Proviso 1.108 (2021-22 Appropriations Act) bars any school district from using funds appropriated or authorized by the Act to require students or employees to wear facemasks or to announce/enforce such a policy.
- Proviso 1.103 permits districts to offer virtual programs for up to 5% of students without affecting state funding; above 5% the district loses 47.22% of state per-pupil funding for each excess virtual student.
- School District sought declaratory guidance because it faces local mask ordinances and a virtual program at capacity; Stokes’ asthmatic child’s pediatrician recommended virtual attendance but district had hit its cap.
- Petitioners challenged the provisos on one-subject rule, plain-language/funding interpretation (ability to fund mandates with non-Act funds), Home Rule/local authority, equal protection, and deprivation of the right to free public education.
- The Court referenced its prior decision in Wilson v. City of Columbia and concluded it would not issue advisory opinions on operational guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-subject rule validity of provisos | Provisos violate Article III, §17 | Provisos relate to raising/spending tax monies | Rejected; provisos comport with one-subject rule (followed City of Columbia) |
| Scope of Proviso 1.108 (funding vs. mandate itself) | Plain language permits mandates if funded by non-Act funds | Proviso prohibits use of Act funds to announce/enforce mandates; legislature intended broad prohibition on using Act funds | Proviso bars use of 2021–22 Appropriations Act funds to announce/enforce mask mandates but does not preclude using other funds |
| Preemption/Home Rule/local ordinances | Provisos improperly invade local school board authority | Home Rule does not let localities override General Assembly; state law controls | Preempts conflicting local ordinances; local authority cannot defeat legislative enactment |
| Equal protection and free-education claims | Provisos deny equal protection and condition right to free education on health risk; virtual funding penalty deprives access | Provisos apply equally; statutes presumed constitutional; funding reflects lower virtual costs | Rejected; provisos constitutional and do not deprive free education or deny equal protection |
| Request for advisory guidance (budgeting, enforcement, staffing) | Court should clarify what districts may do using non-Act funds or unenforced mandates | Court lacks authority to issue advisory opinions; guidance improper | Court declined to provide advisory guidance; only ruled on constitutionality and scope of Act-funded prohibition |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Hilton Head Island v. Morris, 324 S.C. 30, 484 S.E.2d 104 (1997) (legislative provisos reasonably related to raising and spending tax monies satisfy one-subject rule)
- Keyserling v. Beasley, 322 S.C. 83, 470 S.E.2d 100 (1996) (courts must not substitute their judgment for the legislature’s policy choices)
- Doe v. State, 421 S.C. 490, 808 S.E.2d 807 (2017) (statutes presumed constitutional absent clear showing to the contrary)
- Joytime Distribs. & Amusement Co. v. State, 338 S.C. 634, 528 S.E.2d 647 (1999) (standard for presumption of validity of legislative acts)
- Booth v. Grissom, 265 S.C. 190, 217 S.E.2d 223 (1975) (state courts lack jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions)