A Pivotal Shift: SC NAACP Withdraws Federal Race Bias Lawsuit Against State School Funding, Pivots to State Courts

In a significant development that underscores the complex legal battle over equitable education, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP has officially dismissed its landmark federal lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in the state's public school funding system. This pivotal decision, while a setback in federal court, signals a strategic pivot in the long-running fight for educational justice, with the organization now setting its sights firmly on state courts.

The lawsuit, initially filed in 2018, accused the state of South Carolina of maintaining a school funding scheme that systematically discriminates against students based on race, primarily through its heavy reliance on local property taxes.

This mechanism, the NAACP argued, perpetuates vast disparities between predominantly affluent, white school districts and lower-income, often minority, districts, leading to unequal educational opportunities and outcomes.

The dismissal follows a crucial ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel, who found that the NAACP had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the state intentionally discriminated against students based on race—a high bar required for claims under the 14th Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution. Furthermore, Judge Gergel also ruled against the NAACP's "disparate impact" claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, asserting that the organization failed to demonstrate how the state’s policies directly caused a disproportionate, negative impact on students of color.

Brenda Murphy, president of the SC NAACP, expressed the organization's resolve, stating, "While we are disappointed by the federal court’s ruling, our commitment to ensuring every child in South Carolina receives a fair and equitable education remains unwavering." Legal representatives for the NAACP acknowledged the difficulty of meeting the stringent requirements for proving intentional discrimination in federal court.

They concluded that continuing the federal litigation would be an uphill battle unlikely to yield the desired outcomes given the legal precedents and the specific demands of federal anti-discrimination law.

This strategic retreat from federal jurisdiction is not a surrender but a tactical regrouping.

The NAACP's legal team is now preparing to launch a similar, if not identical, lawsuit in South Carolina’s state courts. They believe that the state constitution offers more robust and explicit protections against discrimination than federal law, potentially providing a stronger legal foundation for their arguments.

A key element in their state court strategy will be leveraging the precedent set by the 2014 "Abbeville v.

State" ruling. In that landmark case, the South Carolina Supreme Court found that the state had failed to provide a "minimally adequate" education to students in its poorest districts. While the Abbeville case did not explicitly address racial discrimination, the NAACP intends to build upon its findings, arguing that the lack of adequate funding and resources disproportionately impacts students of color, thus constituting a form of racial discrimination under state constitutional principles.

The state's attorneys have consistently defended the current funding system, asserting that it is race-neutral in its design and application.

However, critics argue that a system, even if designed without explicit racial intent, can still have discriminatory effects when it relies on mechanisms like local property taxes, which inherently link school funding to community wealth—a factor often correlated with racial demographics due to historical and ongoing systemic inequalities.

As the legal spotlight shifts from federal benches to state courthouses, the fight for equitable school funding in South Carolina continues.

The NAACP's strategic pivot underscores their determination to ensure that every student, regardless of their zip code or background, has access to the resources necessary to thrive. This next chapter promises another protracted and closely watched legal battle, with profound implications for the future of education across the state.