Bishop of Charleston v. Adams
| Decision Date | 10 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-1093-BHH |
| Citation | 584 F.Supp.3d 131 |
| Parties | BISHOP OF CHARLESTON, a Corporation Sole, d/b/a The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston, and South Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Marcia ADAMS, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the South Carolina Department of Administration ; Brian Gaines, in his official capacity as budget director for the South Carolina Department of Administration; and Henry McMaster, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina, Defendants, and The State of South Carolina, Intervenor–Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
584 F.Supp.3d 131
BISHOP OF CHARLESTON, a Corporation Sole, d/b/a The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston, and South Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities, Inc., Plaintiffs,
v.
Marcia ADAMS, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the South Carolina Department of Administration ; Brian Gaines, in his official capacity as budget director for the South Carolina Department of Administration; and Henry McMaster, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina, Defendants,
and
The State of South Carolina, Intervenor–Defendant.
Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-1093-BHH
United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.
Signed February 10, 2022
Daniel Robert Suhr, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey Daniel Jennings, Pro Hac Vice, Liberty Justice Center, Chicago, IL, Richard S. Dukes, Jr., Turner Padget Graham and Laney, Charleston, SC, for Plaintiffs.
Eugene H. Matthews, Richardson Plowden and Robinson, Columbia, SC, for Defendants Marcia Adams, Brian Gaines.
Anita Smith Fair, SC Governors Office, Thomas Ashley Limehouse, Jr., William Grayson Lambert, Office of the Governor State of South Carolina South Carolina State House, Vordman Carlisle Traywick, Robinson Gray Stepp and Laffitte LLC, Columbia, SC, Christopher Ernest Mills, Spero Law LLC, Charleston, SC, for Defendant Henry McMaster.
James Emory Smith, Jr., Thomas Tyler Hydrick, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, for Intervenor–Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION
Bruce Howe Hendricks, United States District Judge
INTRODUCTION
This case arises out of a dispute over Article XI, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution, which provides, "No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution." S.C. Const. art. XI, § 4. In July 2020, Governor Henry McMaster announced that he planned to allocate certain federal coronavirus relief funds to assist the State's public and independent historically
black colleges and universities ("HBCUs") and to establish the Safe Access to Flexible Education ("SAFE") Grants Program, which sought to provide need-based grants for eligible students to attend participating private and independent schools. After private plaintiffs, a public school district, and an education association challenged the SAFE Grants Program, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that this program violated Article XI, Section 4 of the state constitution because it would have utilized public funds to provide a direct benefit to private schools.
As a result of the State Supreme Court's decision, the Governor was unable to proceed with his plans to establish the SAFE Grants Program and to allocate federal funds to the State's HBCUs, and he reallocated the available funds to other programs. Similarly, the South Carolina Department of Administration, which the state legislature had charged with administering relief programs for nonprofits and independent colleges and universities, was forced to refrain from disbursing funds to these organizations due to the court's ruling and interpretation of Article XI, Section 4.
Several months later, Plaintiffs—a religious organization that operates several K–12 private schools and an association of private institutions of higher education—filed this suit alleging that Section 4 violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of free exercise of religion and equal protection of the laws. Plaintiffs claim that although Section 4 is facially neutral, it was motivated by both racial and religious discriminatory intent.
Pending before this Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment from all Defendants (including the Intervenor–Defendant), Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine to exclude one of Plaintiffs’ proffered experts, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the State's memorandum and an exhibit. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine as moot, denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and grants Defendants’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.
BACKGROUND
A. Article XI, Section 4
The origins of Section 4 can be traced to South Carolina's Reconstruction Constitution of 1868, which included a provision stating, "No religious sect or sects shall have exclusive right to, or control of any part of the school funds of the State." S.C. Const. art. X, § 5 (1868). This provision was altered by the South Carolina Constitution adopted in 1895, which provided that:
The property or credit of the State of South Carolina, or of any [subdivision], or any public money, from whatever source derived, shall not ... be used, directly or indirectly, in aid or maintenance of any college, school, hospital, orphan house, or other institution, society, or organization, of whatever kind, which is wholly or in part under the direction or control of any church or religious or sectarian denomination, society or organization.
S.C. Const. art. XI, § 9 (1895). Thus, the 1895 Constitution prohibited both direct and indirect aid to religious private schools, among other religious entities.
In 1966, the General Assembly passed a resolution establishing a Committee to Make a Study of the Constitution of South Carolina of 1895. West Committee, Final Report of the Committee to Make a Study of the South Carolina Constitution of 1895 ("West Committee Report"), at 3 (1969).
This committee would be chaired by future Governor John West, who in his inaugural address as Governor would declare the State "color blind." (ECF No. 73-3 at 11, 50.) In creating what is now called the "West Committee," the General Assembly cited "major deficiencies in the present constitutional system" and sought recommendations for amendments. West Committee Report, at 3. After a three-year study, the West Committee offered recommendations in its 1969 Final Report, including what is now Section 4. Adams v. McMaster , 432 S.C. 225, 851 S.E.2d 703, 710–11 (2020).
The West Committee proposed two substantive changes to the provision governing public funding of private educational institutions. First, the Committee proposed to limit its prohibition to direct aid. See id. at 711. Second, the Committee eliminated any reference to "sectarian" institutions and applied the prohibition on direct aid to all private schools in South Carolina, regardless of religious status, affiliation, or identification. See 3 James Lowell Underwood, The Constitution of South Carolina 172 (1992) (noting that Section 4 removed any "taint of singling out religious institutions for hostile treatment").
In explaining these recommendations, the Committee stated:
The Committee evaluated this section in conjunction with interpretations being given by the federal judiciary to the "establishment of religion" clause in the federal constitution. The Committee fully recognized the tremendous number of South Carolinians being educated at private and religious schools in this State and that the educational costs to the State would sharply increase if these programs ceased. From the standpoint of the State and the independence of the private institutions, the Committee feels that public funds should not be granted outrightly to such institutions. Yet, the Committee sees that in the future there may be substantial reasons to aid the students in such institutions as well as in state colleges. Therefore, the Committee proposes prohibition on direct grants only and the deletion of the word "indirectly" currently listed in Section 9. By removing the word "indirectly" the General Assembly could establish a program to aid students and perhaps contract with religious and private institutions for certain types of training and programs....
West Committee Report, supra , at 99–101.
Two-thirds of the South Carolina House and Senate agreed to propose Section 4 as recommended by the West Committee to the voters of South Carolina, who adopted the provision in November 1972. See S.C. Const. art. XVI, § 1 (1895); Act No. 42, 100th Gen. Assemb., 1st Sess. (S.C. 1973). The General Assembly then ratified Section 4 in 1973. Id. Again, Section 4 now states: "No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution." S.C. Const. art. XI, § 4.1
B. Coronavirus Relief Funds
Since the 2019 Novel Coronavirus first emerged,
the U.S. Congress has responded by passing several fiscal relief measures. In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"). See Pub. L. No. 116–136, 134 Stat. 281 (Mar. 27, 2020). Later that year, Congress passed the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations ("CRRSA") Act of 2021. See Pub. L. 116–260, 134 Stat. 1182 (Dec. 27, 2020). These acts established funds relevant here.
1. Governor's Emergency Education Relief ("GEER") Funds
First, the CARES Act established the GEER Fund to be administered by the U.S. Department of Education. See CARES Act §§ 18002–18008. These monies are usually called GEER I funds. Under the CARES Act, through GEER I, the Secretary of Education was authorized to award emergency education relief grants to governors with an approved application. Id. § 18002. Congress gave governors discretion to use GEER I monies to support various education entities. See id. § 18002(b)(1)–(3). The CARES Act also imposed a use-it-or-lose-it deadline on States to access and use the GEER I funds. See id. § 18002(d).
Governor McMaster applied for, and was approved to receive, a GEER I grant of $48,467,924 to distribute at his discretion for the benefit of South Carolina students. He at first sought to allocate about $32 million for the Safe Access to Flexible Education ("SAFE") Grants Program...
To continue reading
Request your trial