Carolina v. McMaster

• Decision Date: 25 January 2022
• Docket Number: No. 21-2070,21-2070
• Citation: 24 F.4th 893
• Parties: DISABILITY RIGHTS SOUTH CAROLINA ; Able South Carolina; Amanda McDougald Scott, individually and on behalf of P.S., a minor; Michelle Finney, individually and on behalf of M.F., a minor; Lyudmyla Tsykalova, individually and on behalf of M.A., a minor; Emily Poetz, individually and on behalf of L.P., a minor; Samantha Boevers, individually and on behalf of P.B., a minor; Timicia Grant, individually and on behalf of E.G., a minor; Christine Copeland, individually and on behalf of L.C., a minor; Heather Price, individually and on behalf of H.P., a minor; Cathy Littleton, individually and on behalf of Q.L., a minor, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. Henry Dargan MCMASTER, in his official capacity as Governor of South Carolina; Alan Wilson, in his official capacity as Attorney General of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellants, and Molly Spearman, in her official capacity as State Superintendent of Education; Greenville County School District; Horry County School District ; Lexington County School District One; Oconee County School District ; Dorchester County School District Two; Charleston County School District; Pickens County School District, Defendants. American Academy of Pediatrics; South Carolina Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics; United States of America, Amici Supporting Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

24 F.4th 893

DISABILITY RIGHTS SOUTH CAROLINA ; Able South Carolina; Amanda McDougald Scott, individually and on behalf of P.S., a minor; Michelle Finney, individually and on behalf of M.F., a minor; Lyudmyla Tsykalova, individually and on behalf of M.A., a minor; Emily Poetz, individually and on behalf of L.P., a minor; Samantha Boevers, individually and on behalf of P.B., a minor; Timicia Grant, individually and on behalf of E.G., a minor; Christine Copeland, individually and on behalf of L.C., a minor; Heather Price, individually and on behalf of H.P., a minor; Cathy Littleton, individually and on behalf of Q.L., a minor, Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v. Henry Dargan MCMASTER, in his official capacity as Governor of South Carolina; Alan Wilson, in his official capacity as Attorney General of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellants,andMolly Spearman, in her official capacity as State Superintendent of Education; Greenville County School District; Horry County School District ; Lexington County School District One; Oconee County School District ; Dorchester County School District Two; Charleston County School District; Pickens County School District, Defendants.American Academy of Pediatrics; South Carolina Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics; United States of America, Amici Supporting Appellees.

No. 21-2070

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: December 9, 2021

Decided: January 25, 2022

ARGUED: William Grayson Lambert, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. John A. Freedman, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Robert D. Cook, Solicitor General, J. Emory Smith, Jr., Deputy Solicitor General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant Attorney General Wilson. Thomas A. Limehouse, Jr., Chief Legal Counsel, Michael G. Shedd, Deputy Legal Counsel, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant Governor McMaster. David Allen Chaney Jr., AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Charleston, South Carolina; Adam Protheroe, SOUTH CAROLINA APPLESEED LEGAL JUSTICE CENTER, Columbia, South Carolina; B. Randall Dong, Anna Maria Conner, Amanda C. Hess, DISABILITY RIGHTS SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina; Rita Bolt Barker, WYCHE, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina; Elisabeth S. Theodore, Anthony J. Franze, Tara Williamson, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C.; Louise Melling, Jennesa Calvo Friedman, New York, New York, Susan Mizner, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, San Francisco, California, for Appellees. Jeffrey B. Dubner, Jessica Anne Morton, Samara M. Spence, Sean A. Lev, DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., for Amici South Carolina Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Pediatrics. Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General, Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, Alisa C. Philo, Sydney A.R. Foster, Appellate Section, Civil Rights Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Elizabeth M. Brown, General Counsel, Francisco Lopez, Mary Rohmiller, Office of the General Counsel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C.; M. Rhett DeHart, Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Amicus United States.

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated in part, remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer joined. Judge Wynn wrote a dissenting opinion.

THACKER, Circuit Judge:

The South Carolina legislature included a provision in the South Carolina state budget that prohibits school districts from using appropriated funds to impose mask mandates. Nine parents of students with disabilities who attend South Carolina public schools and two disability advocacy organizations filed suit against seven school districts, the state superintendent of education, the governor, and the attorney general to challenge this law. The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the law's enforcement, and the governor and the attorney general appealed.

Because we conclude that the parents and the disability advocacy organizations lack standing to sue the governor and the attorney general, we vacate the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction as to those defendants and remand with instructions to dismiss them from this case.

I.

In the appropriations act for the 2021–2022 fiscal year, the South Carolina General Assembly included a budget proviso that precludes primary and secondary schools' use of appropriated funds to impose mask mandates for students and staff:

No school district, or any of its schools, may use any funds appropriated or authorized pursuant to this act to require that its students and/or employees wear a facemask at any of its education facilities. This prohibition extends to the announcement or enforcement of any such policy.

Act of June 21, 2021, pt. IB, § 1.108, 2021 S.C. Acts 1, 256 (the "Proviso"); see J.A. 144.¹

For the school year immediately preceding the Proviso's enactment -- that is, the 2020–2021 school year -- the South Carolina Department of Education instituted a policy "requiring face coverings to be worn on school buses and within public school facilities." S.C. Dep't of Educ. Face Covering Guidelines for K-12 Public Schools (Aug. 3, 2020), https://ed.sc.gov/state-board/state-board-of-education/additional-resources/south-carolina-department-of-education-face-covering-guidelines-for-k-12-public-schools/. Shortly after the Proviso was ratified, however, South Carolina Superintendent of Education Molly M. Spearman ("Spearman") issued a memorandum to the superintendents of local school districts that explained, "The South Carolina Department of Education ... interprets the [Proviso] to mean that school districts are prohibited from requiring students and employees to wear a facemask while in any of its educational facilities for the 2021–2022 school year.... [D]istricts may not create or enforce any policy[ ] which would require the wearing of face coverings." J.A. 146.

Despite the Proviso and Spearman's interpretation of it, some school districts continued to follow universal masking requirements, consistent with medical guidance from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In response, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson ("Wilson") filed suit against the City of Columbia, South Carolina, asserting that its ordinances requiring masks to be worn in primary and secondary schools violated the Proviso. See Wilson ex rel. State v. City of Columbia , 434 S.C. 206, 863 S.E.2d 456 (2021). The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the Proviso was a valid exercise of the South Carolina General Assembly's legislative power and struck down the ordinances as inconsistent with the Proviso because "the enforcement provisions in the ... ordinances make clear that school personnel -- paid at least in part with ‘funds appropriated or authorized pursuant to the [2021–2022 Appropriations Act]’ -- are responsible for enforcing the ... mask mandate." Id. at 461, 462–63. The court nonetheless left open "the possibility that a local government could impose a mask mandate without contravening [the Proviso]." Id. at 461.

Thereafter, a local school district, Richland County School District Two, which had not itself imposed a mask mandate but was subject to the ordinances struck down in Wilson , also filed suit challenging the Proviso. See Richland Cnty. Sch. Dist. 2 v. Lucas , 434 S.C. 299, 862 S.E.2d 920 (2021). At issue in Richland was whether the Proviso prevented the school district "from (1) apportioning its budget so that any mask requirement is funded by federal or local funds, (2) functionally announcing and enforcing a mask requirement without using any funding whatsoever, and (3) designating an employee or series of employees to enforce mask requirements who would be paid exclusively with federal or local funds." Id. at 924. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reiterated its Wilson holdings and specifically explained, "[The Proviso] prohibits the use of funds appropriated or authorized by the 2021–2022 Appropriations Act to announce or enforce a mask mandate.... [W]e do not reject the possibility that funds not appropriated or authorized by that act may be used to announce or enforce a mask mandate." Id.

On August 24, 2021, before the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued its decisions in Wilson and Richland , two nonprofit advocacy organizations for individuals with disabilities -- Disability Rights South Carolina and Able South Carolina -- and nine parents of students with disabilities who attend South Carolina public schools (collectively, "Appellees") brought this action against Spearman, Wilson, seven local school districts -- the Greenville County School District, the Horry County School District, Lexington County School District One, the Oconee County School District, Dorchester County School District Two, the Charleston County School District, and the Pickens County School District -- and South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster ("McMaster"), seeking to enjoin the Proviso's enforcement. Appellees contend that the Proviso prohibits local school districts from imposing mask mandates, which violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because children with disabilities are at increased risk of severe symptoms from COVID-19 compared to other children, and without mask mandates for students and staff, children with disabilities cannot safely attend in-person schooling and are deprived of its benefits.

Several weeks after the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued its opinion in Wilson , and two days before it issued its opinion in Richland , the district court in this case granted Appellees' ...