The South Carolina Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that it is unconstitutional for state lawmakers to raise their own pay while in office. In their opinion that dropped on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, the State Supreme Court issued an injunction against the proviso passed through the 2025-2026 Appropriations Act (fiscal budget) this past April that allowed legislators to receive higher “in-district compensation.”
The Facts
The South Carolina General Assembly passed Act 69 (Session 126) which included Proviso 91.3 which stated, “All members of the General Assembly shall receive an in-district compensation of $2,500 per month.” This is over double the current compensation of $1,000 allotted a month that was set in 1994. This would allocate an extra $25,500 per legislator prior to their election in November of 2026. While legislators have to swear to uphold the South Carolina constitution, the majority voted in clear contradiction as Article III, Section 19 which states that “no General Assembly shall have the power to increase the per diem of its own members.”
According to FITSNews, “this vote to insert pay raises was requested by state senators Shane Martin, Matt Leber and Darrell Jackson.”
This proviso took effect during the same legislative term that it was approved, meaning that the legislature voted and approved an increase for themselves while they were still in office. This proviso was approved by Governor Henry McMaster and would have cost taxpayers around $4.3 million between now and November 2026.
State Senator Wes Climer and state retiree Carol Herring sought a writ of injunction (i.e. a lawsuit) this past June that would prevent the state treasurer from disbursing the increased compensation that otherwise would have taken effect immediately. The lawsuit also named President of the S.C. Senate Thomas Alexander and Speaker of the S.C. House of Representatives G. Murrell Smith Jr. as defendants.
The State Supreme Court’s Ruling
The South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion not only touched on the proviso’s unconstitutionality, but also the vagueness in which it was written, permitting misuse of taxpayer funds outside of official costs. “…the General Assembly has given us nothing on which to presume the money budgeted for in the proviso will be used only for official expenses—in fact, as Petitioners argue, the signs point to the contrary.”
“Specifically, the language of the proviso itself states it is for “in-district compensation.” (Emphasis added). There is no other language in the proviso or the Act as a whole that even hints that the amount of in-district compensation is characterized as true “compensation” (i.e., gross income) for the purposes of both federal income taxes and retirement benefits,” noted chief justice John Kittredge and concurred by all four associate justices in the opinion that was released on on the 12th.
“Notwithstanding this Court’s strong and longstanding respect for the separation of powers and legislative deference, where a legislative enactment clearly contravenes our constitution, we have a duty to declare the legislative enactment unconstitutional…It is for this reason that we are constrained here to find that Petitioners have met their burden to show the proviso is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter how well-intentioned or long-overdue, the result of the 126th General Assembly’s increase in in-district compensation without either limiting language in the proviso or delaying implementation of the increase to the seating of the 127th General Assembly is to increase its own compensation, which our state constitution expressly prohibits. We therefore permanently enjoin payment of the funds covered by the proviso.”
Legislators Weigh In
“Today’s ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court affirms what I’ve said all along: legislative compensation should never be increased midterm, and certainly not by stealth,” Current State Senator and U.S. Congress candidate Wes Climer commented. “Public trust is earned by doing the right thing, even when it’s unpopular. I opposed this pay raise not because the job isn’t demanding, but because how we govern matters. I’ll continue to stand up for transparency, accountability, and integrity in how the General Assembly conducts the people’s business.”
While many rejoiced, some sitting democrats were critical of the State Supreme Court’s decision. State Representative Hamilton Grant posted on X, “An unfortunate decision that could impact the legislative service to constituents. With community investment funds gone and now in-district expenses gone, SC is hell bent on not taking care of actual South Carolinians”.
No one is arguing that legislative pay should be frozen in 1994. Adjusting compensation for inflation is reasonable if we want qualified citizens to be able to serve without going broke. However, this decision highlights a deeper issue…South Carolina’s legislature is in Columbia too often, doing too much. Every time lawmakers head to the capital, the taxpayers pay for per diem, staff, and a constant stream of new laws, government programs, and spending that is always guaranteed to follow. Big government doesn’t grow in silence, it grows when the General Assembly is in session.
If the legislature wants to revisit compensation, they should start by revisiting their own devastating footprint. If the legislature can’t meet without increasing the tax burden and the reach of an already overextended government, then maybe their time should be limited in Columbia.
The Court’s ruling isn’t just about constitutional adherence, it’s a reminder that good governance starts with restraint: restraint in spending, restraint in legislating, and restraint in self-interest. South Carolina taxpayers deserve nothing less.
---------------------------
Alaina Moore is Co-founder of Palmetto State Watch. Host of the Magnifying Glass Podcast. Contributing Editor with United Patriots Alliance.
