Adams v. South Carolina

In order to provide South Carolina children the ability to remain in a school of their choice or to have a new alternatives for quality education in a safe setting, Gov. McMaster used $32 million in federal CARES Act funds entrusted to his discretionary administration to create the Safe Access to Flexible Education (SAFE) Grants program.

The SAFE Grants program provides working class and low-income families with a scholarship of up to $6,500 per student to pay tuition and fees at a private or religious school. The governor anticipates that approximately 5,000 scholarships will be awarded in total for this fall’s rapidly approaching school year.

This program takes no existing money away from public education. What it does is give families the financial support to keep children in their current school and allow others trapped in schools that do not meet their needs a rare opportunity to choose the best educational setting for their child.

Liberty Justice Center, attorneys for Palmetto Promise, is currently litigating on school choice across the country. In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that parents can use publicly funded vouchers to send their children to religious-based institutions. Justice Samuel Alito’s explanation for why he agreed with the Court’s decision specifically mentioned the argument made by the Liberty Justice Center in its amicus brief.

Adams v. South CarolinaThe Liberty Justice Center filed Adams v. South Carolina on July 28, 2020 in South Carolina’s First Judicial Circuit, Orangeburg County.

On October 7, 2020, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a declaratory judgment holding that Governor McMaster’s SAFE Grants Program violated Article XI, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution because it used public funds for the direct benefit of private educational institutions. The Court therefore barred the use of $32 million in GEER funds for the program and dissolved the preliminary injunction, expecting executive compliance with the ruling.