South Carolina Supreme Court Decisions
Located in Columbia, the South Carolina Supreme Court holds exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the death penalty, elections, state utility rates, and certain situations related to state grand juries and abortions by minors. It also holds original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus and certiorari, as well as extraordinary bills. The Supreme Court supervises the legal profession in South Carolina, including disciplinary proceedings for attorneys. It consists of five justices, who are selected according to the unusual method of legislative election. Only one other state in the U.S. uses the legislative election method.
Before the legislature votes on a candidate for the Supreme Court, the Judicial Merit Selection Commission must develop a list of candidates by referring to the requirements in Section 2-19-135(A) of the South Carolina Constitution. These include the character, reputation, physical and mental health, ethical fitness, professional ability, and experience of each prospective candidate. The two chambers of the legislature vote together to select a candidate from the list provided by the Commission. Once they are elected, a justice serves a term of 10 years.
The South Carolina Constitution provides three ways to remove a justice. Under Article XV, they may be removed if they are impeached by a two-thirds vote of the South Carolina House of Representatives and convicted by a two-thirds vote of the South Carolina Senate. The Governor of South Carolina also may remove a justice upon the address of two-thirds of each house of the legislature. Finally, the Supreme Court may remove a justice under Article V, Section 15 if the justice has engaged in judicial misconduct or has a disability that is likely to be permanent and seriously interfere with their duties. Before removing a justice, the Supreme Court will appoint a commission on judicial conduct to investigate a complaint. This commission will hold a hearing if the investigation shows sufficient evidence of a disability or misconduct. It may recommend removal to the Supreme Court, which will decide whether to remove the justice.
- 2024 (87)
- 2023 (75)
- 2022 (57)
- 2021 (84)
- 2020 (87)
- 2019 (108)
- 2018 (128)
- 2017 (85)
- 2016 (118)
- 2015 (162)
- 2014 (166)
- 2013 (162)
- 2012 (160)
- 2011 (221)
- 2010 (184)
- 2009 (247)
- 2008 (213)
- 2007 (240)
- 2006 (201)
- 2005 (236)
- 2004 (223)
- 2003 (266)
- 2002 (174)
- 2001 (173)
- 2000 (185)
- 1999 (162)
- 1998 (140)
- 1997 (187)
- 1996 (133)
- 1995 (132)
- 1994 (154)
- 1993 (151)
- 1992 (176)
- 1991 (194)
- 1990 (137)
- 1989 (139)
- 1988 (93)
- 1987 (128)
- 1986 (162)
- 1985 (182)
- 1984 (137)
- 1983 (130)
- 1982 (147)
- 1981 (178)
- 1980 (172)
- 1979 (168)
- 1978 (197)
- 1977 (170)
- 1976 (141)
- 1975 (155)
- 1974 (121)
- 1973 (146)
- 1972 (146)
- 1971 (131)
- 1970 (108)
- 1969 (99)
- 1968 (90)
- 1967 (108)
- 1966 (113)
- 1965 (121)
- 1964 (120)
- 1963 (119)
- 1962 (120)
- 1961 (119)
- 1960 (102)
- 1959 (91)
- 1958 (87)
- 1957 (112)
- 1956 (121)
- 1955 (127)
- 1954 (111)
- 1953 (95)
- 1952 (93)
- 1951 (106)
- 1950 (126)
Recent Decisions From the South Carolina Supreme Court
Date: November 20, 2024
Docket Number: 28243
Justia Opinion Summary: In this custody modification case, the parents, who divorced in 2012, initially agreed to joint custody of their two children. The father, Joseph Grungo, and the mother, Wendy Grungo-Smith, lived in close proximity in…
Date: October 9, 2024
Docket Number: 2024-MO-022
Date: October 9, 2024
Docket Number: 28238
Justia Opinion Summary: Devin Jamel Johnson was convicted of murdering Akeem Smalls. The incident stemmed from a dispute over a debt Smalls owed Johnson for stolen marijuana. On the night of the murder, surveillance footage showed Johnson and…
Date: September 18, 2024
Docket Number: 28215
Justia Opinion Summary: Adam Rowell was convicted of two felony driving under the influence charges. After the trial, Rowell discovered that Juror 164, who served on his jury, had failed to disclose during voir dire that he had been recently…
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.