Category: Blog

Written by: Eamon Flynn, Second Year Student at the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law It is no secret that the American legal system is slow. A harm is suffered, a complaint is filed and responded to, discovery is conducted, and parties file motions, all before a trial is conducted. Then, the trial process itself occurs, which can take a lengthy period, depending on the facts of the case. Once a decision is made, post-trial motions can be filed, and the decision can be appealed, which lengthens the process even further. It can take years for any kind of civil case to be settled, and public interest cases tend to take longer than most other kinds of cases to be decided. SCPIF's Litigation Out of eight pending cases the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation (SCPIF) is involved in, two have been going on for a year, two have been for two years, three have been going on for more...

Written by: Laird Minor, Eamon Flynn The Lawsuit A suit was brought against Clemson University over its “life trustees” serving on their board of trustees. NOLAS Trading Co. and John Sloan, taking over from his father, Ned Sloan, brought suit against Clemson over these trustees. Plaintiffs argued that these trustees violated the South Carolina Constitution of 1895, which states that no public officer, other than officers of the militia or notaries public, can serve for life or for good behavior. Thomas Clemson’s will states, “The university shall be under the management and control of a board of thirteen trustees, composed of the seven members nominated by the will and their successors, and six members to be elected by the General Assembly in joint assembly.” The will was accepted by the State legislature in 1894, a year before it adopted the South Carolina Constitution of 1895, which prohibits the appointment of public officers, such as the life trustees mentioned in the will. Clemson defended the...

A significant constitutional dispute over Clemson University’s Board of Trustees is making its way through South Carolina’s court system. The case, brought by NOLAS Trading Co. and Ned Sloan, later taken over by his son, John Sloan challenges the appointment and service terms of the university’s lifetime trustees. Background and Legal Framework Clemson University was established through the will of Thomas G. Clemson, which provided for seven “Life Trustees” to govern the institution alongside six trustees elected by the State for four-year terms. These life trustees, originally appointed by Clemson’s will, have operated as a self-perpetuating group since the university’s founding, with existing life trustees appointing replacements when vacancies occur through either death or resignation. The constitutional challenge centers on two key restrictions found in South Carolina Constitution of 1895 which established no person may be “elected or appointed” to office in the state for life or during good behavior, and all officers must serve terms “for some specified period” except for notaries...

A South Carolina judge has upheld SLED's usage of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in South Carolina. ALPRs have been placed throughout the state and indiscriminately capture the license plates of all those who drive through their field of view. After tracking the license plates, that information would be retained in a database for up to a year. As of June 2023, 431 million data entries pinpointing the precise timestamped location of drivers across South Carolina were stored in that database. More than 99.8% of those location observations had no connection to any vehicle of interest to law enforcement at the time that data was captured. Due to the use of ALPRs and the database, SCPIF filed a complaint against the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) in April 2023 arguing SLED use these systems without legislative permission. On May 12, 2025, Judge Thomas W. McGee III of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas granted SLEDs motion for summary judgment, allowing...

In Oconee County, South Carolina, there’s something in the water–taxation. In the fall of 2023, the county issued $25 million in bonds to fund wastewater and sewer treatment for an area near Interstate I-85, but it only benefits part of the county. When the bond proposal was first discussed during County Council meetings, several citizens took issue with the idea and attempted to engage the council to express their concerns.  With no firm budget being presented on how the bond monies would be spent, the group publicly called for a town hall meeting to discuss the issues and question the legality of the proposal.  That offer was firmly rejected, and the county quickly moved to secure the bond amidst public opposition.  The public learned shortly after that the bond was secured, and the monies were to be spent on sewer expansion.  It was then that the citizens approached SCPIF for legal help. Knowing this was a blatant violation of the clear...

What Happened? What would an extra $75 million mean to South Carolina? That amount of money could fund more than 5,000 students for an entire school year. It is nearly the entire public safety budget for the city of Columbia last year. The state could use it to pay down some debt or put it toward fixing the roads. Instead, when Attorney General Alan Wilson won a windfall for the state in court, he directed $75 million of it toward his former law firm in attorney’s fees. South Carolina Public Interest Foundation (SCPIF) is working to get that money back into the public coffers, and making sure something like this can never happen again.   There has been a long history of South Carolina storing plutonium at the Savannah River site. Former Gov. Hodges negotiated with the Department of Energy (DoE) to get the nuclear waste out of South Carolina, which would generate a lot of income for the areas around Aiken and...

In the age of AI, police departments across the country are using increasingly powerful and complex technology every day. In South Carolina, the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) is using one such tool, automated license plate readers, without legislative permission—and without the limitations placed on them by many states. SCPIF has teamed up with The Policing Project at NYU School of Law to prevent SLED from operating this illegal vehicle surveillance program. Improper Data Collection SLED is not only utilizing license plate readers without legislative authority, but they’re also taking full advantage of the lack of oversight. For example, other states have laws limiting how long captured data can be stored or which crimes it can be used to investigate. In New Hampshire, for example, data has to be purged within three minutes unless it is matched to a vehicle of interest to law enforcement. In South Carolina, there are no state laws limiting how long police can retain vehicle surveillance information....

A group of Travelers Rest citizens are alleging constitutional violations by the Greenville County Council. The claims include that the county council has used technical loopholes to violate the state constitution by adopting a bi-annual budget rather than the required annual budget. Other claims involve council members holding closed-door meetings, violating South Carolina’s open meetings law under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). “One of the main focuses of this lawsuit and a lot of others like it, is it requires our public officials to follow the law. We have good laws. The problem is, our public officials are not as faithful and diligent as they should be with following the laws,” said SCPIF’s principal attorney, Jim Carpenter. What's the violation? The state constitution requires that the county adopt a budget every year, but Greenville County has been budgeting bi-annually for approximately ten years. “They have no idea in the next fiscal year whether their revenue is what they projected and what...

Constitutional Context On September 14, 1787, in the closing hours of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Ben Franklin proposed Congress be granted "a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary." Connecticut’s Roger Sherman objected, noting “The expense in such cases will fall on the United States, and the benefit accrue to the places where the canals may be cut.” Sherman’s objection reflected a concern with the potential abuse when responsibility is offloaded to a distant authority. The phenomenon whereby somebody else or some other entity absorbs the risk or cost of another’s behavior is referred to as “moral hazard.” Seeing Sherman’s logic, delegates from South Carolina voted with those from seven other states to reject Franklin’s proposal. By an 8-3 vote, the Framers made clear Congress would have no power to fund canals. Reflecting a similar concern over moral hazard, South Carolina’s Constitution wisely prohibits the use of general obligation bonds to fund infrastructure projects unless a special taxing district is created specifically for...