South Carolina Public Interest Foundation v. Harrell, 378 S.C. 441

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed challenges to several 2007 legislative acts under Article III, Section 17 of the South Carolina Constitution, which requires acts to relate to one subject expressed in the title. The court severed or struck provisions of Acts 49, 83, 110, and 116 that violated the one-subject rule, while upholding the remaining provisions. The court declined to address additional special-law challenges because the petitioners lacked standing.

Holdings

1. The provisions exempting the Department of Health and Environmental Control from certain pharmacy requirements and allowing it to retain specified funds did not relate to the South Carolina Critical Needs Nursing Initiative Act and violated Article III, section 17.
2. The offending provisions of Act No. 49 were severable, and the remaining Critical Needs Nursing Initiative Act could stand and operate independently despite the absence of a severability clause.
3. Sections 5, 6, and 8 of Act No. 83 did not relate to the act's main purpose and were severed; the remaining provisions were sufficiently related to promoting hydrogen and alternative energy.
4. Section 5 of Act No. 110 was enacted in violation of the one-subject rule and was stricken. Section 57, concerning a methane-gas tax credit, was sufficiently related to the Research and Development Tax Credit Reform Act and remained valid.
5. Act No. 116 was sufficiently related to the single general subject of raising revenue, but section 11 concerning wine tastings and section 68 creating the South Carolina Renewable Energy Infrastructure Development Fund were unrelated and were struck.
6. The court declined to address the special-law challenges because Petitioners lacked standing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether specified provisions of 2007 Act No. 49 violated Article III, section 17 of the South Carolina Constitution's one-subject rule.
2. Whether specified provisions of 2007 Act No. 83 violated the one-subject rule and whether the challenged provisions were severable.
3. Whether section 5 of Act No. 110 violated the one-subject rule and whether section 57 was sufficiently related to the act's title.
4. Whether Act No. 116, despite containing numerous provisions, primarily concerned a single subject of raising revenue and whether sections 11 and 68 were unrelated to that subject.
5. Whether Petitioners had standing to challenge Acts 130, 136, 142, 143, and 151 as unconstitutional special laws.

Disposition

other