ACLU Challenges South Carolina ‘Disturbing Schools’ Law
Students Channeled Into Criminal Justice System for Loitering, Cursing, Questioning Police Behavior, or ‘Obnoxious’ Actions
CHARLESTON, S.C. — The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Carolina for making it a crime for students to “disturb” or act obnoxiously at school.
The ACLU found that hundreds of students — as young as 7 years old — are being charged under a far-reaching and nebulous statute for behaviors like loitering, cursing, or undefined “obnoxious” actions on school grounds. The statute also has a chilling effect on students who speak out against policing abuses within the schools. Black students are nearly four times as likely to be targeted under the law.
In addition to the “disturbing schools” statute, the ACLU is challenging a similarly vague “disorderly conduct” law, which prohibits conducting oneself in a “disorderly or boisterous manner.”
“Students are being channeled into the criminal justice system for regular adolescent behavior that schools have dealt with for generations. This shift toward criminalization is hurting young people, particularly students of color,” said ACLU attorney Sarah Hinger.
Plaintiff Niya Kenny, 18, is a former student at Spring Valley High School in Columbia. As a student last October, she witnessed a in her classroom when a school resource officer flipped a classmate over in her desk and dragged her across the room.
Kenny, who is African-American, spoke up against the officer’s actions, recounting, “I was in disbelief and I started praying out loud. I said, ‘Isn’t anyone going to help her?’” Kenny was in turn arrested and hauled off to a detention center.
“After my experience, I felt humiliated and fearful of returning to school. I felt a lot of anxiety. It was a very difficult decision, but I decided not to return to Spring Valley High School,” said Kenny, who withdrew from school and entered a G.E.D. program.
Other plaintiffs include:
- Taurean Nesmith, 21, an African-American student at Benedict College in Columbia, who was arrested because he criticized a police officer for racial profiling during the stop of a fellow student.
- S.P., 15, a student with behavioral and emotional disabilities who, as a freshman in Greenville County, was charged with a crime after failing to comply with instructions to leave the library and cursing at a student who was making fun of her.
- D.S., 17, an African-American student from Charleston for whom a charge of disturbing schools after a minor physical altercation led her into the adult criminal justice system and the risk of detention for inability to pay fines and fees.
- Girls Rock/Charleston, a nonprofit organization that provides mentorship, music and arts education, and leadership development to young people. Girls Rock operates an afterschool program serving at-risk youth and youth who have been involved in the criminal justice system.
The ACLU is challenging the statutes for violating the U.S. Constitution’s due process protections. The complaint, Kenny v. Wilson, was filed in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina/Charleston Division.
“The bottom line is that the state has imposed an impossible standard for school children to follow and for police to enforce with any consistency or fairness,” said Shaundra Scott, executive director of the ACLU of South Carolina.
The complaint is at: /legal-document/kenny-v-wilson-complaint
More information is at: /cases/kenny-v-wilson
Watch the video:
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
CYAP v. Wilson
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
CYAP v. Wilson
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Montana Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. MontanaHeld v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine. -
Texas Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
State v. OchoaState v. Ochoa
This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. -
Press ReleaseApr 2024
Free Speech
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic FreedomACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic Freedom
NEW YORK — In response to the anti-war protests happening at colleges across the country, and the disturbing arrests that have followed, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to leaders at both public and private universities. The letter states: “As you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution.” Authored by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero and National Legal Director David Cole, the letter offers university leaders five basic guardrails to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom are protected on campus: They must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. They must protect students from targeted discriminatory harassment and violence, but may not penalize people for taking sides on the war in Gaza, even if expressed in deeply offensive terms. They can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves. These rules must be applied consistently and without regard to viewpoint. They must recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students and are a measure of last resort. They must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. The letter also informs university leaders of relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has forcefully rejected the premise that, ‘because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.’” The letter strongly advises university leaders to be “cognizant of the history of law enforcement using inappropriate and excessive force in responding to protests, particularly against communities of color,” and that — as events of the past week have made abundantly clear — arresting peaceful protestors is likely to escalate, not calm, tensions on campus. The letter also reiterates that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic and that “physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech.” -
PodcastJan 2024
Juvenile Justice
It's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's StoryIt's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's Story