Jane Doe v. State of South Carolina

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court considered whether statutory definitions of "household member" in the state's domestic-violence statutes unconstitutionally excluded unmarried, same-sex cohabiting couples from protection orders. The court held that the definitions were facially valid but unconstitutional as applied to the petitioner because the exclusion violated equal protection and lacked a rational relationship to the legislative purpose. The court issued a declaratory judgment and, on rehearing, substituted the attached opinions for those previously filed.

Holdings

1. The statutory definition of household member was not facially unconstitutional because it had valid applications, including to same-sex married couples, opposite-sex married couples, and unmarried opposite-sex cohabiting couples.
2. Sections 16-25-10(3) and 20-4-20(b) violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and South Carolina Constitutions as applied to Doe because excluding unmarried same-sex cohabitants from the household-member definition bore no rational relationship to the purpose of protecting victims of domestic violence.
3. The court declared the household-member provisions unconstitutional as applied to Doe and directed that the family court may not use those provisions to prevent Doe or persons in similar same-sex relationships from seeking an Order of Protection.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the statutory definition of household member in S.C. Code sections 16-25-10(3) and 20-4-20(b), which included a male and female who are cohabiting or formerly have cohabited, violated equal protection as applied to an unmarried same-sex couple.
2. Whether the statutes were facially unconstitutional.
3. What remedy was appropriate for the unconstitutional application of the statutes.

Disposition

other