2:11-cv-02958-RMG

Date Filed 03/03/14

Entry Number 152-2

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
United States of America,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
State of South Carolina, and
)
Nikki R. Haley, in her official
)
capacity as the Governor of
)
South Carolina,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Lowcountry Immigration Coalition, et al, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Nikki Haley, et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-02958-RMG

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-02779

[Proposed] FINAL JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d
518 (4th Cir. 2013), and the parties’ Joint Report Regarding Case Status and Disposition, the
Court hereby enters final judgment in this action as follows:
1.

The Defendants Governor, Attorney General and State of South Carolina are

PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from implementing Sections 4, 5, 6(B)(2), and 15 of South
Carolina’s Act 69 (S.C. Code §§ 16-9-460, 16-17-750, 17-13-170(B)(2), 16-13-480). Should
governing statutory or decisional law or other circumstances change in the future, the Defendants
reserve their right, and that of any other appropriate State official, to seek modification of the
injunctions in the Final Judgment via a post-judgment motion under the Federal Rules of Civil

 2:11-cv-02958-RMG

Date Filed 03/03/14

Entry Number 152-2

Page 2 of 2

Procedure or through any other means permitted by law.
2. Defendants represent in the Joint Report that Section 7 and Section 6, excluding
subpart (B)(2), of Act 69 (S.C. Code §§ 23-3-1100, 17-13-170), will be interpreted as specified
by the attached Opinion of the Office of the Attorney General of March 3, 2014, which states in
sum that Section 6 “does not permit officers to prolong the original stop based upon the officer’s
inquiry into or based on a determination, suspicion, or admission concerning a person’s
immigration status,” “Section 7 does not authorize prolonging the detention of a person in jail or
prison simply to determine the person’s immigration status,” and “state law does not authorize
state and local officials to arrest or maintain custody of an individual believed or determined to
be unlawfully present for any purpose, even to transfer the individual to federal custody.”
Pursuant to this interpretation, Plaintiffs have agreed to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice
their remaining claims as to Sections 6 and 7.
3. Each reference to a provision of Act 69 above shall be construed as a reference to any
amendments to those provisions as of this date.
4. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
Charleston, South Carolina
____________, 2014

2