863 S.E.2d 456
S.C.2021Background
- Proviso 1.108 of the 2021–2022 Appropriations Act prohibits any school district or its schools from using funds appropriated by the Act to require students or employees to wear facemasks, and bars announcement or enforcement of such a policy.
- The City of Columbia adopted Emergency Ordinance 2021-068 (and ratifying Ordinance 2021-069) mandating masks for faculty, staff, children over age two, and visitors in all public and private school buildings, and imposing fines and enforcement duties on school personnel.
- Attorney General Alan Wilson filed an original-jurisdiction declaratory-judgment action arguing the City ordinances conflict with Proviso 1.108 and are void; the City defended the ordinances and challenged the proviso.
- The City argued the proviso is not germane to an appropriations act (violating the one-subject rule) and that the City could fund and enforce a mandate without using state-appropriated funds; it also invoked Home Rule and emergency powers.
- The Supreme Court held (1) Proviso 1.108 is a valid, germane appropriations proviso; (2) the City ordinances conflict with and are preempted by the proviso because they require school personnel (paid in part with state funds) to enforce the mandate; and (3) Home Rule/emergency power cannot be used to override state law. The ordinances were declared void insofar as they impose a K–12 mask mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City mask ordinances are preempted by Proviso 1.108 | Proviso forbids use of appropriated funds to require or enforce mask mandates in K–12 schools, so conflicting local ordinances are preempted | Ordinances are valid local law; no conflict because City can and will enforce independently | Proviso preempts ordinances; ordinances void to extent they impose mask mandates in K–12 schools |
| Whether Proviso 1.108 violates the one-subject rule / is germane to appropriations | Proviso is germane because it regulates expenditure of departmental appropriations | Proviso is not germane to fiscal matters and thus violates the one-subject rule | Proviso is reasonably and inherently related to raising and spending tax monies and is constitutional |
| Whether the City can avoid conflict by using only municipal funds and personnel | City: mandate can be funded/enforced by City without using state appropriated funds | AG: ordinances expressly require school personnel (paid with state funds) to enforce and impose penalties, making dual compliance impossible | Ordinances expressly force school personnel to enforce, creating an impossible conflict; harmonization fails |
| Whether Home Rule / emergency declaration permits local law that conflicts with state law | City: Home Rule and declared emergency authorize the ordinance for public health | AG: Home Rule does not allow municipalities to contravene state law | Home Rule/emergency powers do not authorize a locality to override state legislation; local law cannot conflict with state law |
Key Cases Cited
- McAbee v. S. Ry. Co., 166 S.C. 166, 164 S.E. 444 (1932) (municipal laws must not be inconsistent with state law)
- State v. Solomon, 245 S.C. 550, 141 S.E.2d 818 (1965) (ordinance void where it conflicts with a state statute)
- City of N. Charleston v. Harper, 306 S.C. 153, 410 S.E.2d 569 (1991) (local police powers subject to limitation of nonconflict with state law)
- S.C. State Ports Auth. v. Jasper Cnty., 368 S.C. 388, 629 S.E.2d 624 (2006) (conflict preemption when compliance with both state law and ordinance is impossible)
- Town of Hilton Head Island v. Morris, 324 S.C. 30, 484 S.E.2d 104 (1997) (proviso in appropriations act valid if reasonably and inherently relates to raising/spending of tax monies)
- Westvaco Corp. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 321 S.C. 59, 467 S.E.2d 739 (1995) (one-subject rule standards; title must convey reasonable notice)
- Joytime Distribs. & Amusement Co. v. State, 338 S.C. 634, 528 S.E.2d 647 (1999) (statutes presumed constitutional and construed to be valid)
- Moye v. Caughman, 265 S.C. 140, 217 S.E.2d 36 (1975) (Home Rule does not permit local control over matters allocated by General Assembly, e.g., public education)