Court of Appeals Gives DHEC and Chem-Nuclear Ninety Days to Submit Plan for Reducing Nuclear Contamination of Groundwater at Disposal Site
In Sierra Club v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmetal Control, the South Carolina Court of Appeals gave the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (“DHEC”) ninety days to submit a plan to bring a nuclear waste disposal facility operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC (“Chem-Nuclear”) located in Barnwell County into compliance with South Carolina regulations aimed at the prevention of radioactive waste contamination of groundwater at nuclear waste disposal facilities. Sierra Club v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, No. 2012-212791, 2014 WL 3734366, at *21 (S.C. Ct. App. July 30, 2014).
WRITTEN BY JACOB HENEREY
This June, the Supreme Court finally admitted what the rest of us already knew: Cell phones aren’t wallets. They aren’t cigarette packages. And by themselves, they aren’t dangerous. Cell phones are, however, devices containing a treasure trove of personal information. Which is why the Court’s ruling in Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), issued just in time for Independence Day, is a victory for civil liberties advocates.
Riley was a consolidation of two cases that raised the same question: can the police search the contents of an arrestee’s cell phone without a warrant? In the case of David Riley, the police accessed text, photographs, and videos from Riley’s cell phone that implicated him as a gang member, leading authorities to charge him with additional crimes. See Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2480–81. In the other case, police used the contact information and call log on Brima Wurie’s cell phone to locate his apartment, where a subsequent search turned up drugs and a firearm. See id. at 2481. The evidence from Riley and Wurie’s cell phones helped convict the two men, earning them lengthy prison sentences. See id. at 2481–82. Continue reading
Written by John Tamasitis
On December 16, 2013, the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in Occupy Columbia v. Haley. According to several media outlets friendly to the Occupy protests that sprung up in 2011, the Fourth Circuit delivered an early Christmas present to the populist, egalitarian movement and vindicated Occupy Columbia’s First Amendment challenge to Governor Nikki Haley’s decision to have them forcibly removed from the State House grounds. However, the court’s preliminary decision only addressed the narrow threshold issue of whether Governor Haley and her codefendants were entitled to qualified immunity as a defense to Occupy Columbia’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In finding that Occupy Columbia asserted two separate First Amendment violations—one of which, if true, violated a right that was clearly established and, thus, did not provide grounds for Governor Haley and her codefendants to cloak themselves in immunity—the Fourth Circuit denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the case to move forward. Continue reading
A Message from the Editor in Chief
The South Carolina Law Review is pleased to formally announce the creation of the SCLAWblog, a dynamic and interactive legal resource designed to provide Law Review alumni, judges, attorneys, legal academics, and members of the public with the latest updates on issues relating to South Carolina law.
On behalf of the Volume 65 Editorial Board, I would like to welcome everyone to the blog, a tool we hope will prove to be an invaluable resource not only to South Carolinians, but also to individuals beyond the borders of our state.
The idea for the blog emerged as we began to transition between Volume 64 and Volume 65. Wishing to further enhance our offerings to the South Carolina legal community—in addition to providing our Fourth Circuit case summaries—we decided to create a forum that would serve as a marketplace for ideas to promote the discourse and dialogue regarding contemporary legal issues in South Carolina.
Our goal is to provide a scholarly arena in which law students, law professors, and practitioners can read and write about South Carolina Supreme Court opinions and the potential impact that court’s decisions may have on various aspects of the law. Additionally, we will provide bill summaries for important legislation passed by the General Assembly, outlining any implications or consequences new measures may have for South Carolina residents upon becoming law.
Blog visitors will also have the opportunity to comment on blog posts, and we encourage users to share their thoughts and contribute to the legal scholarly debate stemming from such posts.
While the blog is still in its initial stages, we hope to continue improving it such that the legal community can rely on our prompt updates on law-related matters in South Carolina, whether they come from the General Assembly or the state Supreme Court. That being said, we are excited about the progress made thus far and look forward to the continued development of the SCLAWblog.
Of course, should you have any questions or if you would like to learn more about the South Carolina Law Review, I strongly encourage you to visit our web site, www.sclawreview.org. For more information about the University of South Carolina School of Law, please be sure to visit the law school’s web site, www.law.sc.edu.
Thanks in advance for supporting the South Carolina Law Review. We appreciate your interest and hope everyone continues to enjoy following the SCLAWblog!
Editor in Chief, Volume 65
I want to thank Thomas Limehouse (Editor in Chief, Volume 64) for his vision, guidance, and input, all of which was crucial to conceptualizing the nature and scope of the blog, and Chris Jones and Jeff Gurney (Technology Editors for Volume 64 and Volume 65, respectively) for working tirelessly to turn this idea into a reality through innovation, collaboration, and hard work.