Joint Committee on Federalism
S0476 creates a new legislative body in South Carolina called the Joint Committee on Federalism. The committee would be made up of the top Senate and House leaders, or their designees, and would be required to meet at least four times per year. Its purpose is to review federal laws, executive orders, regulations, guidance, and other federal actions to determine whether they are authorized by the U.S. Constitution or whether they violate principles of federalism.
The bill sets out a detailed constitutional framework for the committee’s review, listing many specific constitutional provisions the committee may use as the basis for evaluating federal authority. It also directs the committee to consider whether a federal action shifts power away from the state, limits state policymaking discretion, or interferes with powers reserved to the states or their citizens. In making these evaluations, the committee must rely primarily on the text and original meaning of the U.S. Constitution and relevant primary-source historical materials, and it is expressly not bound by federal court holdings.
If the committee concludes that a federal law is unauthorized or inconsistent with federalism, it may request meetings with members of Congress or the responsible federal entity and may make recommendations to the General Assembly. The committee must also prepare an annual report to the legislature by January 10 describing any challenged federal laws, actions taken, and communications received, and that report must be posted publicly on the General Assembly’s website.
The bill would add a new chapter to Title 2 of the South Carolina Code and would create an ongoing legislative mechanism for monitoring and responding to federal action. It also authorizes coordination with similar bodies in other states and requires distribution of the new chapter to state governors, legislative leaders, South Carolina’s congressional delegation, the U.S. President, the Chief Justice, and congressional leadership. The act would take effect upon approval by the Governor.
The bill’s general sentiment appears to be strongly pro-state sovereignty and skeptical of federal overreach, based on its structure and purpose. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or voting history in the supplied materials. The main likely point of contention is the bill’s explicit invitation to assess federal law independently of federal court holdings, which could raise concerns about separation of powers, practical enforceability, and potential conflict with federal supremacy; supporters would likely view it as a constitutional check on federal authority and a formal defense of state prerogatives.
This bill would add Chapter 81 to Title 2 of the South Carolina Code and create a standing Joint Committee on Federalism within the General Assembly. It would not directly change substantive regulatory or criminal statutes, but it would establish a new legislative process for reviewing federal actions, issuing reports, making recommendations, and coordinating with other states and federal officials. The bill also creates administrative duties for legislative staff and requires the House and Senate to fund the committee from their approved accounts.
Based on the bill text alone, the measure reflects a clear anti-federal-overreach and pro-state-federalism posture. It appears designed to give legislative leaders a formal role in scrutinizing federal authority and responding to perceived encroachments on state power. Because no transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded public debate in the supplied materials, but the bill’s framing suggests support from lawmakers concerned about federal intrusion and likely criticism from those wary of symbolic conflict with federal authority or of disregarding federal court precedent.
The most notable point of contention is the bill’s instruction that the committee is not bound by federal court holdings, which could be seen as challenging judicial supremacy in interpreting federal law. Another likely issue is the breadth of the committee’s review authority, which extends to executive orders, agency regulations, guidance, and actions by appointed officials, potentially inviting politically driven scrutiny of a wide range of federal activity. Supporters are likely to emphasize state sovereignty, original constitutional meaning, and protection of reserved powers, while opponents may argue the committee is largely advisory, duplicative, or constitutionally confrontational.