786 S.E.2d 124
S.C.2016Background
- South Carolina enacted 2007 Act No. 114 creating the Secretary of Transportation (appointed by Governor) and included §6 providing that the Governor's appointment authority would terminate and devolve to the DOT Commission effective July 1, 2015.
- 2015 Appropriations Act (2015 Act No. 91) included Proviso 84.18, which suspended that devolution for the 2015–16 fiscal year (delaying transfer until June 30, 2016).
- Petitioners (SC Public Interest Foundation and an individual) challenged Proviso 84.18 in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, arguing it violated the state constitution’s one-subject rule (Art. III, § 17) because it was not germane to the appropriations act’s fiscal purpose.
- The State and intervenor defended inclusion of the proviso as germane to the appropriations act (arguing ties to agency operations and the act’s title), and urged restraint or broader reading of germane doctrine.
- The Court held Proviso 84.18 was not reasonably and inherently related to raising or spending tax monies and thus violated Art. III, § 17; it ordered Proviso 84.18 stricken and the devolution to the DOT Commission to have taken effect July 1, 2015.
- The Court modified prior precedent (American Petroleum) to permit excision of non-germane provisions from the general appropriations act rather than invalidating the entire act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proviso 84.18 in the Appropriations Act violates Art. III, § 17 (one-subject rule) | Proviso suspends an administrative/delegation rule unrelated to raising/spending revenue and is therefore not germane/log-rolling | Proviso concerns agency operation/selection of an official who exercises fiscal discretion and thus is germane; title of act covers "operation of state government" | Held: Proviso 84.18 is not reasonably and inherently related to raising/spending tax monies and violates Art. III, § 17; Proviso stricken |
| Proper analytical scope for germane review of items in an appropriations act | Review should test whether provision reasonably and inherently relates to fiscal purpose (raising/spending) | Argues provisions should be read in context of agency budget or broader act title so more items qualify as germane | Held: Context matters but cannot swallow the one-subject rule; agency-specific additions that are merely administrative/procedural are not automatically germane |
| Appropriate remedy when an appropriations-act provision violates Art. III, § 17 | Strike the non-germane provision so the remainder of the appropriations act stands | (Some respondents implied whole-act invalidation risks; intervenor relied on Am. Petroleum) | Held: Court modifies American Petroleum—when a non-germane provision appears in the general appropriations act, the court may excise that provision rather than invalidate the entire act |
| Appropriateness of exercising original jurisdiction | Petitioners argued public interest warranted expedited original review | Dissent argued the matter was not appropriate for original jurisdiction and the Court should dismiss | Majority exercised original jurisdiction; dissent would have dismissed as inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Petroleum Inst. v. South Carolina Dep't of Revenue, 382 S.C. 572, 677 S.E.2d 16 (2009) (held entire act must be struck when one-subject rule violated; majority here modifies that rule for appropriations acts)
- Giannini v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 378 S.C. 573, 664 S.E.2d 450 (2008) (approvability where provisions reasonably and inherently related to raising/spending)
- Ex parte Georgetown Water & Sewer Dist., 284 S.C. 466, 327 S.E.2d 654 (1985) (provision affecting method of selecting governing body inappropriately placed in appropriations act)
- Maner v. Maner, 278 S.C. 377, 296 S.E.2d 533 (1982) (administrative amendments not germane to appropriations)
- S.C. Tax Comm'n v. York Elec. Coop., 275 S.C. 326, 270 S.E.2d 626 (1980) (procedural/unrelated statutory change inappropriately included in appropriations act)
- Keyserling v. Beasley, 322 S.C. 83, 470 S.E.2d 100 (1996) (sections that do not directly set revenue may still be germane if reasonably and inherently related to revenue generation)
- Hercules, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 274 S.C. 137, 262 S.E.2d 45 (1980) (suspending limitations to permit continued tax collection found germane)
- Powell v. Red Carpet Lounge, 280 S.C. 142, 311 S.E.2d 719 (1984) (definitional provisions tied to licensing fees found germane)
- Caldwell v. McMillan, 224 S.C. 150, 77 S.E.2d 798 (1953) (appropriations act provision authorizing facility construction and lease upheld as germane)
- State ex rel. Roddey v. Byrnes, 219 S.C. 485, 66 S.E.2d 33 (1951) (appropriations act tied to revenue generation upheld)
- Crouch v. Benet, 198 S.C. 185, 17 S.E.2d 320 (1941) (appropriations act purpose is raising and spending revenue upheld)