COLUMBIA, S.C. (Legal Newsline) - Attorneys who succeeded in their lawsuit against South Carolina lawmakers are now seeking to have their fees and costs paid by the State.
Christopher Mills of Spero Law in Charleston and the America First Legal Foundation filed their request June 27 in federal court, more than a month after Judge Cameron McGowan Currie granted summary judgment to their client, the South Carolina Freedom Caucus.
The caucus includes members of the state House of Representatives who wish to promote conservative principles like the rule of law and equal protection.
They said their free speech rights were violated because they were prohibited from engaging in "any activity that would influence the outcome of an election or ballot measure" while other caucuses could engage in speech and raising and spending money for such political speech.
Those caucuses with "favored" causes are the House Democratic Caucus, the Black Caucus and Women's Caucus, the suit says. Caucuses organized according to party, race or gender were permitted to engage in political speech, irking the others who were not.
"The court finds Plaintiff meets the factors for granting a permanent injunction," Currie wrote. "Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury by having its speech restricted by law in the absence of a permanent injunction.
"It is well established that the loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."
Having won summary judgment on all three claims, attorneys are now seeking more than $58,000 in fees and costs. They call the Freedom Caucus the prevailing party in a lawsuit that materially alters the legal relationship between the parties.
"This judgment allows the plaintiff to engage in its speech unhindered by unconstitutional regulation or the threat of an enforcement action by the defendants," the motion says.
The Freedom Caucus said South Carolina, which passed ethics measures in response to corruption in the state legislature that saw 17 members arrested for bribery, extortion or drug use between 1989-99.
In 2006, the legislature added a new type called "legislative special interest caucus," overriding a veto from the governor's office.
There are 15 House legislative special interest caucuses that will be helped by Currie's opinion. She found the portion of state law not allowing them to "engage in any activity that would influence the outcome of an election or ballot measure violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It also struck down the portion stating a lobbyist can't offer or provide contributions to a legislative special interest caucus. Those groups can now solicit contributions and accept funds from a lobbyist, while no longer maintaining the name and address of each person making a donation in the past four years.