Skip to content
The COVID Project
  1. Library
  2. South Carolina
  3. SC-041

Ex. SC-041 Order Primary source read

Wilson ex rel. State v. City of Columbia, Op. No. 28056, 863 S.E.2d 456 (S.C. 2021)

Proviso 1.108 upheld; Columbia Ordinances 2021-068 and 2021-069 declared void insofar as they mandate masks in K-12 public schools

Supreme Court of South Carolina (original jurisdiction) · South Carolina (Court)

The COVID Project

The record

Jurisdiction
South Carolina
Level
Court
Authority
S.C. Const. art. V, § 5; Proviso 1.108, Act 94 of 2021; Home Rule Act
Issued
2021-09-02 Sept. 2, 2021
Effective
2021-09-02 (heard Aug. 31, 2021) (read as 2021-09-02)
End
n/a (read as 2021-09-30)
In force
Sept. 2, 2021 to Sept. 30, 2021
Quarters
2021 Q3
Limitation types
Face-covering requirementSchools and child care
Addressees
  • City of Columbia
  • school districts within the City
  • every local government considering a school mask ordinance
Functions reached
  • IN in-person instruction
  • WF workforce (parents; school staff)
  • EC child care (the daycare portion of the ordinances was not before the Court)
Collection
South Carolina SC

Operative words

Proviso 1.108 manifestly sets forth the intent of the legislature to prohibit mask mandates funded by the 2021-2022 Appropriations Act in K-12 public schools... The City ordinances would impose a $100 fine for each 'civil infraction.'... The conflict here is express, and, thus, Proviso 1.108 preempts the ordinances... we uphold Proviso 1.108 and declare void the challenged ordinances of the City insofar as they purport to impose a mask mandate in K-12 public schools.

Enforcement

Declaratory judgment; the Attorney General's Aug. 11, 2021 letter to the City recited

Notes

Recites the ordinances' operative words: masks for 'all faculty, staff, children over the age of two (2), and visitors, in all buildings at public and private schools or daycares'; Proviso 1.108 'enacted into law on June 22, 2021.' Footnotes 4-5 give the ordinance URLs (SC-058; SC-059).

Retrieval note

Left open 'the possibility that a local government could impose a mask mandate without contravening Proviso 1.108' (as the Fourth Circuit read it, SC-043).