Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This matter has come before the Court pursuant to the State of South Carolina’s Motion to
Dismiss it as a party to this case. The Plaintiff and the State filed memoranda regarding the
Motion and appeared for argument of the Motion on July 29, 2020, in Orangeburg. After carefully
considering the memoranda and the arguments at the hearing, this Court has decided to grant this
Motion.
This case seeks an injunction to prevent the Defendants from the distribution of any Safe
Access to Public Education (SAFE) Grant which Plaintiff contends violates S.C. Const. art. XI
§§3 and 4. Previously this Court issued a temporary restraining order to last until the hearing on
July 29. The State contends that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant injunctive or
declaratory relief as to the State as an entity in this case. This Court agrees.
The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Award Relief as to the State
As stated this Court has previously stated in a prior Order in Harbor Island Owner’s
Association, v. State of South Carolina, et al, April 18, 2019, C/A No. 2018CP702331, p. 2 (copy
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as to the State for the claims for
injunctive relief. A justiciable controversy is a real and substantial controversy
appropriate for judicial determination, as opposed to a dispute or difference of a contingent,
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 04 12:05 PM - ORANGEBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP3800774
hypothetical or abstract character.” Sloan v. Greenville Cty., 356 S.C. 531, 546, 590
S.E.2d 338, 346 (Ct. App. 2003). No such case or controversy exists here because no
remedy is available. The Supreme Court has referred to “redressable injury sufficient to
meet the requirements of Art. III” and “the Art. III requirement of actual or threatened
injury amenable to judicial remedy.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United
for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 475 (1982). . . . To require an action
such as removal or a directive requiring others to act necessitates an official with such
duties and authority or at least an agency with such responsibilities. Plaintiff has named
none. Therefore, the State is not a proper defendant to this action and is dismissed.
In this case, the State, as a corporate entity encompassing the entire State of South Carolina, has
no collective responsibilities regarding the SAFE grant program. To enjoin the award of the
grants requires that a person be named who has authority over those awards who can be directed
to do or not do something. The State, as an entity, is not such a person. Accordingly, it must be
The Complaint fares no better as to its claim for declaratory relief. As stated in Tourism
Expenditure Review Comm. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 403 S.C. 76, 81–82, 742 S.E.2d 371, 374
(2013):
When this Court lacks subject matter to award injunctive relief against the State as an entity and
when the State, as an entity encompassing the entire State, is not responsible for the award of
SAFE grants, a declaratory ruling regarding the State would be “purely advisory.” Accordingly,
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the State’s Motion to Dismiss it as a party to
this case on the above grounds. The Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the Complaint.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 04 12:05 PM - ORANGEBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP3800774
Orangeburg Common Pleas
Type: Order/Dismissal
So Ordered