Columbia, S.C. (July 1, 2019) – The South Carolina Supreme Court announced today that it has denied the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus submitted by The Episcopal Church (TEC) on March 22, 2019, seeking to compel Judge Edgar W. Dickson to rule in their favor. The Parishes and the Diocese of South Carolina (Diocese) responded on March 26, requesting the Supreme Court’s permission to intervene. On April 12 they submitted their Return to the Petition.
Today’s action by the Supreme Court allowed the intervention of all the parties whose property TEC seeks and confirms the arguments presented in the Return which they filed. The intent of the Petition requested by TEC was to have the Supreme Court require the Circuit Court to interpret the Supreme Court’s August 2, 2017 ruling as TEC wished it interpreted. The Parishes and the Diocese opposed the Petition essentially arguing that the issues were before Judge Dickson who was using the discretion afforded him by state law to resolve them.
At its core, the Petition was an attempt to end run Judge Dickson’s exercise of his discretion in interpreting the August 2, 2017 decision in a manner that may differ from TEC’s interpretation. However, the Supreme Court refused to tell Judge Dickson how he should rule in interpreting the August 2 decision. Instead the Court expressed confidence that Judge Dickson would “resolve the matters that are pending, in an expeditious manner.”
The Diocese of South Carolina welcomes this decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court that the Circuit Court is the proper venue to resolve the issues arising from the August 2, 2017 decision.
The briefs in support of the motions by the Diocese to dismiss this Petition can be found on the Diocesan website, along with further background on the legal struggle. The full July 1, 2019, ruling by the Supreme Court may also be found among the related court documents found there .
Excellent. We can hope this Circuit Court judge will affirm the very careful and correct ruling issued by the original Circuit Court several years ago.
I do not envy the judge his task. He has 5 different SC Supreme court justices’ opinions to wade through, and one of those from a justice who has since recused herself (and to her credit, if one looks at the decision cited in the article, she did indeed recuse herself in this recent Supreme Court ruling).
As always, prayers for all those in the Diocese of South Carolina, and for Bishop Lawrence.
To her credit? No, not really. Her recusal means nothing at this stage. She should have recused herself from the beginning.
I agree with you LBB, so I apologize for “poor wording”. What I hoped to convey was that at least she was acting consistent with her post-decision recusal, and did not try to alter the balance in the current decision.
Truth be told, I was surprised when she was elected to the Supreme Court in SC. If I understand their process, the justices are elected by the state assembly. I have no idea who does the nominating. But she seems, at least in this series of cases, out of step with both the precedents of previous decisions, and the relative conservatism of South Carolina (relative to, say, California or Vermont). Her position clearly came as a surprise to
Judge Goodman (do I remember that correctly???)Judge Goodstein (thank you LBB) in the lower court who had spent so much time and effort to construct a ruling that was consistent with S. Carolina Supreme Court precedent and trust law, only to see all that swept aside for a church canon that has no authority in the state, and does not meet the minimum standards under law to establish a trust.Agree 100%, and you were very close – It was Judge Goodstein.