News – South Carolina Public Interest Foundation

SC Supreme Court Hearing Cases in Clemson Sept 15 and 16

September 9, 2026September 9, 2026 by Staff Comment Closed

The South Carolina Supreme Court is coming to Clemson University on Sept. 15–16 to hear oral arguments. The two-day session will take place on campus at the Brooks Center for the Performing Arts (141 Jersey Lane). While the state's highest court usually meets in the capital city of Columbia, the justices have traveled across the state this year including a spring session at Presbyterian College to engage more South Carolinians in the judicial process. The SC Public Interest Foundation's case is on the Docket During the Clemson sessions, the four-member panel—Chief Justice John W. Kittredge along with Associate Justices George C. James Jr., D. Garrison Hill, and Letitia H. Verdin—will hear several notable legal matters, including: Governor's Military Authority: The SC Public Interest Foundation contends against the governor's legal authority to deploy the South Carolina National Guard to Washington, D.C under poorly defined disorderly circumstances allegedly occurring in the city. Attendance Details: Location: Brooks Center for the Performing Arts, 141 Jersey Lane, Clemson University campus. Schedule: Sept. 15–16, beginning at 10 a.m. each day. Admission: Free and open to the public, though pre-registration...

Lawsuit Claims SC Ports Authority Broke Open Meetings Law Over CEO’s $920,000 Exit Package

September 1, 2026September 8, 2026 by Staff Comment Closed

Barbara Melvin, the South Carolina Ports Authority’s former President and CEO, abruptly resigned in August 2025. The Authority, by agreement, paid her about $920,000, in severance and retirement contribution payments, allowed her to keep her company cell phone, iPad and laptop, and paid her the balance of unused accrued sick time. This change comes at a time when container traffic through the port has fallen, and the Authority lost a high-profile court battle with the dockworker’s union. Subsequently, Frank Heindel, a Mount Pleasant resident and retired businessman, filed suit against the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCPA) on August 19, 2026 in the Ninth Judicial Circuit. The suit alleges SCPA held a closed-door executive session to discuss the $920,000 separation package they would later grant to former SCPA President and CEO Barbara Melvin once she left SCPA. Under S.C. Code Ann. § 54-3-103, separation packages such as this one require a recorded public vote. The Statutory Framework Since SCPA is expressly named as...

SC National Guard Deployment: Supreme Court Hearing Coming Soon to Clemson University

August 27, 2026August 27, 2026 by Staff Comment Closed

Save the date! On September 15, at 10 AM in the Brooks Center at Clemson University. Public attendance is encouraged. Did the Governor legally adhere to his responsibility under the state's constitution? The SC Public Interest Foundation believes potentially unconstitutional acts must be addressed....

BZA Ruling on Silfab from May 2024 Upheld by Circuit Court in All Aspects

August 3, 2026August 4, 2026 by Staff Comment Closed

A Significant Setback to Silfab and York County Statements and Actions The Silfab Solar cell chemical manufacturing and panel assembly plant on Logistics Lane in Fort Mill, SC just received a ruling issued by Circuit Court Judge William A. McKinnon on July 21, 2026, in the case Silfab vs. BZA. This ruling is the result of a hearing on May 26, 2026, where oral arguments were presented by all parties to the appeal by Silfab regarding the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) May 30, 2024, final written decision. This decision unanimously reversed the York County Zoning Administrator’s interpretation that solar panel manufacturing is a permitted use in a Light Industrial (LI) district. Most importantly, the Court AFFIRMED the BZA’s decision in all aspects and rejected each of Silfab’s arguments. This ruling affirms that the citizen’s two plus years of opposing this development in its current LI location is supported by legal facts in all regards. While the Circuit Court determination that the now...

SC Supreme Court Schedules Oral Arguments at Clemson University on National Guard Deployment

July 3, 2026July 3, 2026 by Staff Comment Closed

The President requested, and Governor McMaster deployed South Carolina National Guard troops to the District of Columbia. While South Carolina law allows such deployments to suppress riots or mayhem, neither was occurring at the time of deployment in D.C. Democracy Forward and the ACLU of South Carolina sued the Governor and asked the SCPIF to serve as a co-plaintiff. The Supreme Court granted Original Jurisdiction on February 9, 2026, and gave us 20 days to file our brief. We filed our brief on March 2, 2026. Opposing counsel filed their brief March 20, with an Affidavit from Adjutant General Rob Stillwell. The affidavit claimed that S.C. National Guard troops have been deployed to a variety of places, for a variety of reasons. His affidavit, notwithstanding, fell short on addressing the core legal issue. Opposing counsel’s first argument (which is supposedly their best argument) is that public importance standing is unconstitutional. It appears, however, that because the Court granted us Original Jurisdiction,...

SCPIF Attorney Represents John Sloan vs Clemson’s Board of Unconstitutional Life Trustees

July 2, 2026July 2, 2026 by Staff Comment Closed

Since its founding in the 1880s, Clemson University has always had seven "life trustees". The SC Constitution of 1895 prohibits any state officer from serving in an office for a life term, even despite good behavior. Before his passing a few years ago, Ned Sloan, SCPIF's founder, filed suit, alleging the life trustees violated the state Constitution. His son, John Sloan became the plaintiff. Specifically, the SC Constitution Article VI, Section 1 reads: "No person may be elected or appointed to office in this State for life or during goodbehavior, but the terms of all officers must be for some specified period except officers in the militia."1 Regardless of this clear language, Clemson University, a state institution, has seven “life trustees.” The Probate Court of Pickens County granted summary judgment to Clemson, and the Circuit Court affirmed, reasoning that they were appointed privately from the will, not publicly, and therefore they were not public officers. We appealed. At this point, both sides have filed their briefs....

SCPIF Challenges Unconstitutional SLED License Plate Readers

July 1, 2026July 1, 2026 by Staff Comment Closed

The Policing Project at the New York University School of Law, SCPIF and John Sloan have teamed up to challenge SLED’s use of Unconstitutional license plate reader cameras and maintaining a database with 150 million individual reads without statutory authority or governing regulations. The Circuit Court has already heard arguments on cross-motions for summary judgment. On May 13, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants; on May 22, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. This motion was unopposed. The Court recently granted the motion, and SCPIF has filed a Notice of Appeal. At the current moment, we have filed our initial brief, with the Cato Institute additionally filing an Amicus Brief on our behalf. The respondents now have until early July to pen their response....

Settlement Reached in Greenville County Budget Lawsuit — Plaintiffs Secure End to Contested Practices and Full Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees

June 18, 2026June 18, 2026 by Staff Comment Closed

Greenville County, South Carolina — Plaintiffs in the Greenville County budget litigation, including Senator Dwight Loftis (R-South Carolina Senate District 6, Greenville County) Representative James Mikell “Mike” Burns (R-South Carolina House District 17), Representative Patrick Haddon, (R-South Carolina House District 19, Former Representative Adam M. Morgan (R-South Carolina House District 20), Representative T. Alan Morgan (R-House District 18), Former Representative Ashley B. Trantham (R-House District 28), the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation, citizen Michelle Shuman (Greenville), and other public officials and citizens, have reached a settlement resolving their legal challenge to the County’s budget practices. Senator Loftis and Representative Burns had previously successfully challenged Greenville County’s Road Maintenance and Telecommunications Fee in Burns v. Greenville Cnty. Council, 433 S.C. 583, 861 S.E.2d 31 (S.C. 2021) where the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the lower court and held that two Greenville County “fees” were actually unlawful taxes, and therefore invalid under state law wherein the Court stated “State law prohibits local government from imposing taxes unless they are value-based property taxes or are specifically...

Redistricting: Are Lawmakers Concerned About Their Own District Being Redrawn?

June 5, 2026June 5, 2026 by Staff Comment Closed

If you’ve been remotely abreast of the news in our state, then you've most likely heard the word “redistricting” being thrown around in Columbia. While the State House and Senate have reached Sine Die, essentially have held their last session, they may still come together to discuss whatever topics they approved for themselves beyond Sine Die. One of these topics is redistricting. Why are we discussing redistricting now? Redistricting now is in vogue across the country because of the landmark SCOTUS decision, Louisiana v. Callais. (A summary can be found here: https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/aftermath-callais)1 Previous to Callais, districts were required to adhere to principles guided by the Voting Rights Act, essentially creating districts that in practice reflected where ethnic minorities lived and voted. Redistricting guidelines for partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection in the American South, where districts were drawn to support minority populations, are now gone. Redistricting Rules Redistricting must now consider these rules exclusively2: Districts must have contiguous borders, meaning lines must be unbroken (districts connected...

Silfab Opponents File Petition with the US Supreme Court for Relief Against South Carolina’s Judicial System for Non-Action.

May 22, 2026May 28, 2026 by Staff Comment Closed

In May 2024, the York County BZA voted unanimously against solar cell manufacturing as not an approved use in a light industrial zone. In Jan 21, 2026, Bivins v. York County suit was dismissed and ruled the adjacent landowner, Bivins, has no standing although law clearly states legal standing should Bivins claim he “may” be damaged. The residents of Fort Mill, SC have been engaged in a costly battle against every level of our state's judicial system. The legal maneuvering from the county, circuit and supreme courts over the past 2 1/2 years is staggering. In the fall of last year, SC Attorney General issued a statement that York County had authority to revoke the construction permitting. Regardless how the public fought using the zoning rules as their basis, the judges and courts at every turn allowed time to pass and the factory to open. In Feb 13, 2026, a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for Building A is issued. On March 2, 2026, within...