Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against South Carolina Racial Instruction Proviso

Columbia, South Carolina – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a South Carolina state budget proviso that restricts certain racial instruction in public schools. The decision comes as a significant ruling regarding educational policy in the state, impacting how racial issues are taught in the classroom.

The lawsuit was filed in January by various plaintiffs, including the South Carolina NAACP, renowned author Ibram X. Kendi, Chapin High librarian Ayanna Mayes, teacher Mary Wood, and two students. These plaintiffs argued that the South Carolina Department of Education was censoring racially inclusive education, which they claimed violates the U.S. Constitution. The judge, U.S. District Judge Sherri Lydon, ruled that the lawsuit was legally baseless and failed to demonstrate any concrete harm.

In her ruling, Judge Lydon acknowledged that the issues raised in the case are significant public matters. However, she emphasized that such matters should be resolved through the democratic process rather than the federal courts. The dismissal has drawn mixed reactions, especially from civil rights advocates.

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund has described the ruling as “disappointing,” highlighting the essential nature of educating about Black history and heritage. They argue that the contested Budget Proviso 1.79 is racially and politically motivated, aiming to suppress accurate teachings about the history of racism and discrimination against Black individuals.

Examples of the impact of the proviso have already surfaced, including the removal of a book by a Black author and the censorship of lessons on systemic racism at a high school due to the rules set forth in the proviso. Since its introduction in 2021, this budget measure has significantly affected public school curricula across the state.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who is also a candidate for gubernatorial elections in 2026, supported the South Carolina Department of Education’s stance, declaring the court decision a victory. He stated that the lawsuit was essentially an attempt to promote a political agenda rather than address any real harm faced by students.

State Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver expressed the department’s commitment to providing an education that acknowledges both the painful and inspirational aspects of history. The court ruling also clarified the reasoning behind the removal of the Advanced Placement African American Studies course, stating that it was part of a broader curricular review and not solely due to the enactment of the proviso.

Legal Defense Fund attorney Charles McLaurin highlighted the ongoing threats that Budget Proviso 1.79 poses to the education of Black children and educators. He reiterated the need for comprehensive educational standards that accurately reflect historical truths.

Plaintiff Ayanna Mayes remained determined, expressing a commitment to continue advocating for a curriculum that embraces truth and provides students with a holistic educational experience.

FAQ