Edwards v. State

• Decision Date: 04 June 2009
• Docket Number: No. 26662.,26662.
• Citation: 383 S.C. 82,678 S.E.2d 412
• Parties: Casey EDWARDS and Justin Williams, Petitioners, v. STATE of South Carolina and Mark Sanford, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina, Respondents. and South Carolina Association of School Administrators, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Mark Sanford, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of South Carolina, and The Honorable Jim Rex, in his official capacity as the State Superintendent of Education of South Carolina, Respondents.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

678 S.E.2d 412

383 S.C. 82

Casey EDWARDS and Justin Williams, Petitioners, v. STATE of South Carolina and Mark Sanford, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina, Respondents. and South Carolina Association of School Administrators, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Mark Sanford, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of South Carolina, and The Honorable Jim Rex, in his official capacity as the State Superintendent of Education of South Carolina, Respondents.

No. 26662.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard June 3, 2009.

Decided June 4, 2009.

Richard A. Harpootlian and Graham L. Newman, of Richard A. Harpootlian, PA, of Columbia, for Petitioners Edwards and Williams.

Kenneth L. Childs, William F. Halligan, John M. Reagle, and Keith R. Powell, of Childs & Halligan, P.A.; and Frank S. Holleman, III, of Wyche Burgess Freeman & Parham, PA of Greenville, for Petitioner South Carolina Association of School Administrators.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Deputy Attorney General Robert D. Cook, Assistant Deputy Attorney General J. Emory Smith, Jr., and Senior Assistant Attorney General C. Havird Jones, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent State of South Carolina.

John W. Foster, of Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, of Columbia; Adam H. Charnes, Richard D. Dietz, and William R. Poplin, Jr., of Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, of Winston-Salem, NC, for Respondent Sanford.

Shelly Bezanson Kelly, Karla McLawhorn Hawkins, Barbara A. Drayton, and Wendy Bergfeldt Cartledge, of South Carolina Department of Education, of Columbia, for Respondent Rex.

Richard Mark Gergel and W. Allen Nickles, III, of Gergel, Nichols & Solomon, of Columbia, for amicus curiae South Carolina Education Association.

Chief Justice TOAL, Justice WALLER, Justice BEATTY, and Justice KITTREDGE:

We accepted these matters concerning the application for State Fiscal Stabilization (SFS) funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)¹ in our original jurisdiction. These two cases are brought as the result of a dispute between the Governor of South Carolina and the General Assembly of South Carolina over whether the State should apply for and accept the SFS portion of the ARRA funds. This Court has no role to play in the policy considerations at issue between the Governor and the General Assembly. Our duty under the South Carolina Constitution and the remand from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina is to declare the law. Petitioners in the first action (Edwards Action) seek a declaratory judgment that § 1607 of the ARRA allows the South Carolina General Assembly to request, accept, and distribute the SFS funds, which the General Assembly included in the 2009-10 General Appropriations Bill (the Budget), and that Governor Sanford must execute the Budget as enacted by the General Assembly.

In the second action (SCASA Action), Petitioner seeks a declaration of the rights, status, and other legal relations between the parties concerning Part III of the Budget; to declare Respondents must take the actions required by Part III of the Budget; and to order equitable relief to cause Respondents to perform the duties under Part III of the Budget. In addition, Petitioner asks the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Governor Sanford to perform the duties required under Part III of the Budget. Finally, Petitioner asks for a declaratory judgment that the State Superintendant of Education has been empowered by the General Assembly to act in the Governor's name to apply for the SFS funds.

I. FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The ARRA, federal economic stimulus legislation, was enacted by Congress to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery; assist those most impacted by the recession; provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health; invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits; and stabilize state and local government budgets in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases. ARRA, § 3(a). In the ARRA, as is typical in federal funding legislation, Congress specifies how the federal funds are to be allocated and spent in the respective states.

Section 1607(a) of the ARRA requires the Governor, within forty-five days of the enactment of the ARRA, to certify that: (1) the State will request and use funds provided by the Act; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic development. Because Governor Sanford disapproved of the use of funds as mandated by Congress, he initially indicated he would not make the § 1607(a) certification. Yet on the final day for certification, April 3, 2009, Governor Sanford made the § 1607(a) certification by letter to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, including the request "that funds be released to the appropriate state agencies to spend in accordance with guidelines set forth in the ARRA and by federal agencies." In his April 3, 2009 certification letter, Governor Sanford did express "reservations" and noted his intention to pursue his concerns with the "policy makers within the General Assembly of South Carolina."

The South Carolina General Assembly acted on Governor Sanford's § 1607(a) certification. On May 13, 2009, the General Assembly appropriated the ARRA funds, including the SFS funds, in the Budget². In Proviso 90.15 of Part IB of the Budget, the General Assembly set forth its intention to "accept all available funds from the State Budget Stabilization Fund contained within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and to authorize expenditure of such funds as delineated in this act."

In Part III, Section 1 of the Budget, the General Assembly requires the Governor and the State Superintendent of Education to take all actions necessary and required by the ARRA and the U.S. Secretary of Education in order to secure the receipt of the funds recognized and authorized for appropriation in the Budget. In accordance with the ARRA guidelines, Part III of the Budget requires the Governor to apply for the phase one State Fiscal Stabilization funds within five days of the effective date of Part III. The Governor is required to apply for the phase two funds within thirty days of those funds becoming available.

In addition, on May 14, 2009, pursuant to § 1607(b) of the ARRA, in an apparent response to Governor Sanford's public criticism of the ARRA, the General Assembly adopted a concurrent resolution³ to accept the ARRA funds should the Governor fail to accept the funds. Section 1607(b) provides: "If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State." Pursuant to § 1607(c), entitled "DISTRIBUTION," Congress provides: "After the adoption of a State legislature's concurrent resolution, funding to the State will be for distribution to local governments, councils of government, public entities, and public-private entities within the State either by formula or at the State's discretion."

Governor Sanford vetoed provisions of the Budget, including the ARRA funds. The General Assembly voted to override the vetoes on May 21, 2009.

Notwithstanding his § 1607(a) certification of the ARRA funds and the presence of a lawfully enacted appropriations act, Governor Sanford has refused to formally apply for the SFS funds. Governor Sanford's refusal to comply with state law is based on what he asserts as contrary and controlling federal law—a claim of absolute discretion under the ARRA, specifically § 14005. Although Governor Sanford removed these actions to federal court, the matters were remanded to this Court by order dated June 1, 2009.

II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

(1) Does the General Assembly have the authority under South Carolina law to require Governor Sanford to apply for the SFS funds?

(2) If so, are the provisions of the Budget requiring Governor Sanford to apply for the SFS funds in conflict with the ARRA?

(3) Should this Court grant a writ of mandamus to compel Governor Sanford to apply for the SFS funds?

(4) Does the Superintendent of Education have the authority to apply for the SFS funds in the Governor's name?

III.

SOUTH CAROLINA LAW

Separation of Powers

"In the government of this State, the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other, and no person or persons exercising the functions of one of said departments shall assume or discharge the duties of any other." S.C. CONST. art. I, § 8. One of the prime reasons for separation of powers is the desirability of spreading out the authority for the operation of the government to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of too few and provide a system of checks and balances. State ex rel. McLeod v. McInnis, 278 S.C. 307, 312, 295 S.E.2d 633, 636 (1982). Under our system, the legislative department makes the laws, the executive department carries the laws into effect, and the judicial department interprets and declares the laws. Id. at 312, 295 S.E.2d at 636.

The General Assembly has the duty and authority to appropriate money as necessary for the operation of the agencies of government and has the right to specify the conditions under which the appropriated monies shall be spent. State ex rel. Condon v. Hodges, 349 S.C. 232, 244, 562 S.E.2d 623, 631 (2002); Gilstrap v. S.C. Budget and Control Bd., 310 S.C. 210, 216, 423 S.E.2d 101, 105 (1992) (noting that the appropriation of public funds is a legislative function); Clarke v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 177 S.C. 427, 437, 181 S.E. 481, 484 (1935) (noting that the General Assembly has full authority to make...