Over the years SCPIF has achieved numerous significant legal victories, and been directly responsible for a number of notable court decisions applying state law to governments and their officers. Some of these cases include:

South Carolina Public Interest Foundation v. SC Department of Transportation, Opinion No. 27738 (September 2017).

Action challenging the constitutionality of DOT’s inspection of three privately-owned bridges in a gated community. Held: (1) The issue is one of great public importance because it involves both the conduct of a government entity and the expenditure of public funds, and accordingly Petitioners have “public importance” standing to maintain the lawsuit; and (2) the DOT’s inspection of the privately owned bridges was unconstitutional because it contravened the constitutional requirement that the expenditure of public funds serve a public purpose.

South Carolina Public Interest Foundation v. Lucas, 416 SC 269, 786 S.E. 2d 124 (2016).

Action challenging the constitutionality of the inclusion of a particular proviso in the state’s annual appropriations act. Held: (1) That proviso, which suspended termination of the Governor’s power to appoint the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, was not germane to the purpose of the annual appropriations act, and therefore the act’s inclusion of such proviso violated the “single subject” requirement of the state constitution; and (2) when deciding a challenge to the annual appropriations act which alleges a violation of the constitution’s single subject requirement, the Supreme Court has the authority to excise any provision that is not germane to fiscal issues.

American Petroleum v. SC Department of Revenue (2009). (SCPIF as amicus curiae).
Action asserting that Act 338 violated the “one subject” rule of the state constitution. Held: (1) An act combining multiple different matters constitutes unconstitutional “log-rolling”; and (2) when an act violates the one subject rule it will be stricken in its entirety, and the Court will not attempt to determine which portions are proper and which are not.
South Carolina Public Interest Foundation v. Harrell, 378 SC 441, 663 S.E. 2d 52 (2008).
Action in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, challenging certain legislative enactments as violative of the “one subject” rule of the state constitution. Held: Certain sections of these acts violated the one subject rule, or did not relate to the main purpose of that act, and would therefore be severed and stricken.
Sloan v. SC Department of Transportation, 379 SC 160, 666 S.E. 2d 236 (2008).
Declaratory judgment action against the Department of Transportation (DOT), challenging whether DOT properly authorized emergency procurement for a road construction project. Held: (1) Allegedly moot issue of whether the DOT properly authorized emergency procurement was one that is capable of repetition, yet would usually evade judicial review; (2) the taxpayer had standing; and (3) safety concerns relating to unfinished road construction project did not constitute an “emergency,” and thus DOT could not authorize emergency procurement.
Sloan v. Hardee, 371 SC 495, 640 S.E. 2d 457 (2007).
Action seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, contending that three commissioners of the Department of Transportation (DOT) were serving consecutive terms in violation of the statute. Held: The statute providing that no county within a DOT district could have a resident commission member for “more than one consecutive term” prohibited a DOT commissioner from serving a second consecutive term of office.
Sloan v. Wilkins, 362 SC 430, 608 S.E. 2d 579, 195 Ed. Law Rep. 1004 (2005).
Petition in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction seeking a declaration that legislation commonly referred to as the “Life Sciences Act” violated the state constitution’s “one subject” rule. Held: (1) A citizen had standing to file the petition, in light of the great public importance of issue presented; (2) the act violated the state constitution’s one subject provision; and (3) provisions which were germane to this act’s “one subject” of life sciences would be upheld and offending provisions would be stricken.
Sloan v. School District of Greenville County, 342 SC 515, 537 S.E. 2d 299 (2000). (Court of Appeals)
Declaratory judgment action against a school district and school board members seeking a determination that contracts which the district had entered into were invalid. Held: The taxpayer had standing to challenge the allegedly illegal contracts due to the school district’s failure to abide by competitive sealed bidding requirements, as (1) taxpayer had a direct interest in the proper use and allocation of tax receipts by the school district; and (2) preventing the unlawful expenditure of tax money was of immense public importance.