On August 11, 2016, the non-profit, Girls Rock, and four students of South Carolina public schools, filed this lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiffs sued the Attorney General of South Carolina and the heads of twelve South Carolina Police Departments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, asked the court for a declaratory judgement that two South Carolina codes, commonly referred to as the "Disturbing Schools" statute and the “Disorderly Conduct” statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They further asked for injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from enforcing the statutes. The plaintiffs claimed that the statutes set an impossible standard for students to follow and made it next to impossible for students to speak out against mistreatment or unfair punishment. The plaintiffs also claimed that the statutes violated due process because they were unjustifiably vague. Further, the plaintiffs pointed to evidence that the statutes disproportionately affected black students.

One named plaintiff, a nineteen-year-old African American girl, was a former student of a South Carolina public school. While in math class one day, she and other students watched as a School Resource Officer flipped a classmate onto the floor in her desk, yanked her from the overturned desk, dragged her across the floor, and handcuffed her. (She had been caught texting in class and refused to leave her seat.) The plaintiff called out for someone to stop the violence and began documenting the event; she was then herself arrested under the Disturbing Schools statute and held in an adult detention center for several hours.

With the complaint, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to certify class and a motion for a preliminary injunction.

On December 8, 2016, U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction, and on the defendants’ motion to strike class action certification. On March 3, 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On March 20, 2017, the defendants moved for attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit on this order to dismiss on March 22, 2017. Shortly after, the district court granted a motion to stay proceedings on the defendants’ fees and expenses motion pending resolution of the appeal.

On April 6, 2018, the Fourth Circuit overturned the dismissal, finding the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to allege injury in fact. 885 F.3d 280. The court held that students faced a credible threat of future arrest or prosecution under the challenged laws, and so the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the decision of the district court. The case was reassigned to Judge Margaret B. Seymour. The defendants again moved to dismiss the complaints.

The plaintiffs and the police department defendants entered into a consent agreement to stay proceedings on May 15, 2018, recognizing that a bill in the South Carolina Legislature, if passed, would make changes to the current Disturbing Schools law. The police department defendants withdrew all pending renewed motions to dismiss and objections to the plaintiffs’ class certification, and the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims against the police department defendants with prejudice upon a final judgment on claims against the remaining defendants. The plaintiffs further agreed to seek attorneys’ fees and costs from the other defendants should the plaintiffs prevail in the litigation, and the police department defendants agreed to not seek fees from the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs continued to pursue claims against the Attorney General of South Carolina. They filed an amended complaint on May 16, 2019, adding another individual plaintiff. In addition, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as well as a motion to dismiss or strike class action allegations on June 6, 2019. The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss on March 30, 2020. The court reasoned, among other things, that although one of the plaintiffs was no longer in school, her claims, being of a transitory nature, were not moot. In addition, the court found that as no pleadings had made clear that the class in this matter cannot be certified, it would be premature to rule on the validity of the class allegations at this time.

As of August 2020, this case is ongoing.

Gabriela Hybel - 02/12/2017
Erica Becker - 03/20/2019
Bogyung Lim - 08/11/2020


compress summary