Tag: 2026

Government agencies are starting to let artificial intelligence help decide which records answer a public records request and what gets blacked out before release. In most places, including South Carolina, these agencies aren’t required to tell the requester that they used AI. The federal government is the furthest along with using AI for FOIA redactions. The Washington Post reported that U.S. Customs and Border Protection plan to use Google’s AI and machine learning tools to recommend redactions to its FOIA officers (Washington Post). DHS told the paper it would apply the tools to request types making up more than 10% of its caseload, roughly 100,000 to 140,000 requests (Washington Post). Interior uses Microsoft technology to flag possible attorney-client material, Justice uses a Veritone product to redact video, and HHS is building a tool called “FRED” with an unnamed contractor (Washington Post). None of this is unusual anymore. According to the National Archives, one-fifth of federal agencies have started using machine learning...

Written by: Tim Hegarty, VP, Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI), and concerned Fort Mill resident SCPIF is not directly affiliated with the litigation of this issue As you may be aware, the Silfab Solar chemical manufacturing facility operating in Fort Mill, SC has been appealed by an adjacent property owner and the public as being unlawful per the York County Zoning Code of Ordinances in its current Light Industrial (LI) zoned location. This appeal has been proven to be correct multiple times beginning with the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) unanimous ruling issued on May 30, 2024, stating that solar cell manufacturing was prohibited in Light Industrial zoned locations. That decision was subsequently upheld by Circuit Court Judge William A. McKinnon in his first ruling issued on July 21, 2026, to which Silfab Solar promptly motioned for reconsideration. Judge McKinnon later reaffirmed that ruling on August 28, 2026, after hearing Silfab’s motion. If you are keeping count, as I am, that...

On September 9, 2026, the South Carolina Supreme Court handed down its opinion in South Carolina Public Interest Foundation v. Oconee County, a case that on its surface looks like a routine municipal bond dispute but instead raises a real question about how much access citizens actually have to challenge local government financing decisions. The court sided with Oconee County, ruling that a twenty-day statute of limitations barred the plaintiff’s lawsuit before it ever addressed whether the county’s bond ordinance violated the state constitution. In doing so, the court left a serious constitutional question unanswered and, in the process, sent a clear signal that procedural deadlines will take precedence over substantive review, even when the underlying claim touches on how citizens are taxed. The Underlying Dispute The case grew out of Oconee County Ordinance 2023-13, which authorized $25 million in general revenue bonds to fund the third phase of a sewer and wastewater treatment project near where Interstate 85 crosses into the county....

For well over a year, a lawsuit alleging that Silfab Solar was constructing an unlawful solar panel manufacturing operation next to York County schools has been frozen in place. Now, new court orders show that even after the very appeal cited as the reason for that pause has finally been decided, but the case still has not been allowed to move forward. The Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI) sued Silfab Solar, Inc. and York County in September 2024, arguing that the company’s massive solar panel manufacturing plant in York County was being constructed despite not being allowed by the local zoning code. In January 2025 the case was stayed by Circuit Judge Martha M. Rivers, pending the final outcome of Silfab’s separate administrative appeal over a Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) ruling. That BZA ruling was decided May 9, 2024 and the BZA issued its order May 30, 2024. The Order was a unanimous decision reversing the Zoning Administration and Silfab’s...

Tomorrow, SCPIF challenges the Governor’s military authority to deploy the S.C. National Guard to Washington, D.C. under poorly defined “disorderly circumstances.”  This deployment cost millions in taxpayer funding and further put S.C. at risk by deploying one of the state’s greatest disaster response teams outside of the state. Arguments will be held at Clemson University to better involve South Carolina citizens. Here are the important 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 is required. Registration link here. Designated parking will be provided on campus. A full schedule of cases for the two-day session is available on the South Carolina Supreme Court website. Link Here. We Would be Honored to See You There!...

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...

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....

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...

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,...