How this headline may connect to industries in South Carolina. Technical scores are below — click any ? for what a metric means.
Judge denies ACLU-SC's bid for injunction in lawsuit tied to South Carolina redistricting
South CarolinaGDELTGDELT event0% biasedWed, May 20, 2026, 12:00 AM
0 of 11 sentences classified as biased · Model: roberta-anno-lexical-ft-v1
Judge denies ACLU-SC's bid for injunction in lawsuit tied to South Carolina redistricting.Judge denies ACLU-SC's bid for injunction in lawsuit tied to South Carolina redistricting RICHLAND COUNTY, S.C.(WCIV) — A court denied a motion for a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, which accused state lawmakers of violating the law during a special House Rules Committee meeting tied to congressional redistricting efforts.In his order, Judge Daniel Coble wrote that the South Carolina Constitution gives each chamber of the General Assembly the authority to determine its own procedural rules without interference from the courts or the executive branch.He cited a 2011 South Carolina Supreme Court decision affirming that principle.The plaintiffs challenged the House’s handling of a committee meeting tied to congressional redistricting, arguing lawmakers failed to comply with notice requirements.But Coble pointed to House Rule 4.4, which generally requires a 24-hour notice for committee meetings while also allowing the House speaker to waive that requirement in “exigent circumstances.” READ MORE | "'Disappointed, but not surprised': Clyburn says of South Carolina's push to redistrict." According to the ACLU of South Carolina, the state’s open meetings law was violated on Monday evening when the South Carolina House of Representatives debated legislation that would redraw congressional district lines during an ongoing primary election.After the committee failed to provide the required 24-hour public notice ahead of Monday’s meeting, which violated the state Freedom of Information Act, the complaint alleges.The judge said the House had properly adopted the rule and concluded the plaintiffs’ claims presented “a purely political question that is nonjusticiable.” He added that court intervention would violate separation-of-powers principles.Coble also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument under the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, writing that the state’s FOIA law “does not apply to the complained of resolution.” The order noted that the chief administrative judge for Common Pleas would retain jurisdiction over any future congressional redistricting-related cases filed in Richland County, if necessary.The order can be read below.