SC Supreme Court says schools can’t use state budget funds to enforce mask mandates

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled against Richland School District 2 in a lawsuit over masks in schools.

In a unanimous opinion issued Thursday morning, the state’s highest court ruled that a one-year law written into the state’s budget prevents public schools from using funds from the 2021-2022 state appropriations bill to enforce mask mandates in schools.

However, language in the state Supreme Court opinion left open the possibility that different sources of funding could be used for masks.

“Proviso 1.108 (the one-year state budget law) prohibits the school district from using funds appropriated or authorized under the 2021-2022 Appropriations Act to announce or enforce a mask mandate in its K-12 schools,” the decison said. “We do not reject the possibility that other funds might be used to do so.”

The ruling comes weeks after the Supreme Court ruled against a City of Columbia mask mandate, saying the city’s ordinance at the time conflicted with state law. After that ruling, Richland County, which also had passed a mask mandate, backed off a policy it also had.

However, both Columbia and Richland County subsequently reinstated mask mandates in the city and in the unincorporated areas of the county, to include schools. In each of their new measures, those governments painstakingly laid out that money from this year’s state budget was not to be used for enforcement of the ordinances.

Also, the state Supreme Court’s ruling comes just two days after a federal court issued an injunction temporarily blocking the one-year state law that bans school districts from using state funds to require masks in classrooms. The federal court ruled that banning mask mandates discriminates against students with disabilities because banning mask mandates makes it unsafe for some children to attend school.

The state Department of Education sent out a statement after Thursday’s state Supreme Court ruling, noting that it has no bearing on the federal injunction.

“The United States District Court’s order is not affected or controlled by the South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in a different case based upon a different cause of action,” the Department of Education statement said. “Because the federal district court found that Proviso 1.108 violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, both the state and local school districts are prohibited from enforcing Proviso 1.108 and school districts maintain the discretionary authority to require masks.”

On Thursday, Richland 2 Superintendent Dr. Baron Davis said the district will continue mandating masks, citing the federal ruling.

“After consulting with legal counsel regarding today’s S.C. Supreme Court ruling and the (Tuesday) ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis, Richland School District Two administration will continue to follow the guidance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control and the S.C. Department of Education by requiring face coverings,” Davis said in a statement.

After the federal ruling, Richland 2 announced students and staffs in schools would be required to wear masks, beginning Thursday.

The state Supreme Court’s ruling was issued in a lawsuit filed in late August by Richland 2 and an Orangeburg parent. The suit asked the Supreme Court to block the one-year law, called a proviso, that prevented public S.C. school boards from using state money to require students to wear masks in classrooms. The suit named House Speaker Jay Lucas, R-Darlington; state Senate President Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee; and S.C. Superintendent of Education Molly Spearman as defendants.

Attorneys for Richland 2 and the parent argued the proviso was unconstitutionally vague and interfered with a school’s ability to provide the constitutionally mandated “minimally adequate” education. They also argued the legislature would need to pass a general law, not a proviso, to ban mask mandates from schools, The State reported previously.

Opposing lawyers, who represented General Assembly leadership, argued the proviso should stand because provisos have the same force as a general law and that school funding is so intermingled there is no way to indirectly use state dollars.

When attorneys made their cases to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Donald Beatty said the ruling would be based on legal standards, not politics or health.

“We are not interested in the political arguments (or) political solutions. We are not here to make any medical statements or pronouncements,” Beatty said. “We are here to make a decision on the rule of law.”

Educators throughout the state have expressed disagreement with the proviso, because they see it as standing in the way of common sense policy. Both the S.C. Department of Heath and Environmental Control and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend wearing masks in close-quarters indoors areas.

Before Richland 2 filed its suit, Richland 1 was among the first school districts to formally resist the state proviso by defying state lawmakers and requiring masks in schools. As cases rose, Lexington 2 also required students to wear masks in school.

This story was originally published September 30, 2021 at 11:06 AM.