South Carolina Supreme Court Weighs Fate of $26M in County Road Fees

Lawsuit seeks repayment of fees collected in violation of state law, raising questions about separation of powers

Published on Mar. 5, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The South Carolina Supreme Court is considering a lawsuit seeking the repayment of $26 million in road user fees collected from Georgetown County property owners in violation of state law. The suit alleges the fees were an illegal tax, and seeks 10 times the amount in damages. The case has raised questions about the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, as the state passed a law retroactively authorizing the fees, which the lower court ruled unconstitutional.

Why it matters

This case could have a significant financial impact across the state, as similar road user fees have been challenged in other counties. It also touches on the complex issue of the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches, as the court must determine whether the legislature can retroactively authorize fees that have been deemed illegal.

The details

The lawsuit was filed by Georgetown County resident Richard Butts, seeking repayment of the $15 annual road user fee that was implemented in 2001 and has since increased to $50. In 2021, the state Supreme Court struck down a similar fee in Greenville County, ruling it was an illegal tax. This prompted a wave of lawsuits around the state, including Butts' case. The legislature then passed a law, Act 236, that retroactively authorized the collection of such fees, even if they also benefit the general public. The lower court ruled this law unconstitutional, but the counties are appealing, arguing the law should only apply to future cases, not those already decided.

  • The $15 annual road user fee was implemented in Georgetown County in 2001.
  • In 2021, the state Supreme Court struck down a similar fee in Greenville County.
  • In 2024, a lower court judge ruled that the law retroactively authorizing the fees, Act 236, was unconstitutional.
  • The counties' appeal to the state Supreme Court was consolidated with a case from Orangeburg County.

The players

Richard Butts

A Georgetown County resident who filed the lawsuit seeking repayment of the road user fees.

John Kittredge

The Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Andrew Lindemann

A Columbia attorney who represented the counties before the Supreme Court.

Ross Appel

The attorney representing Butts and the plaintiff from Orangeburg County.

Henry McMaster

The Governor of South Carolina who signed Act 236 into law.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“It's an important case. We appreciate the ripple effect and collateral consequences of the decision.”

— John Kittredge, Chief Justice, South Carolina Supreme Court (coastalobserver.com)

“Local governments, for obvious reasons, want to avoid calling a tax a tax. I am hopeful that today's decision will deter the politically expedient penchant for imposing taxes disguised as 'service or user fees.'”

— John Kittredge, Chief Justice, South Carolina Supreme Court (coastalobserver.com)

“The counties want this court to overturn decades of separation of powers precedent so they can keep millions of dollars in illegally collected fees. That's exactly why the retroactivity offends separation of powers.”

— Ross Appel, Attorney for Plaintiffs (coastalobserver.com)

“Fundamentally, what we're dealing with here is whether and under what circumstances it's legal to change the rules in the middle of the game. My 4-year-old daughter understands that.”

— Ross Appel, Attorney for Plaintiffs (coastalobserver.com)

What’s next

The South Carolina Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the case in the coming months, which will determine the fate of the $26 million in road user fees collected by Georgetown County.

The takeaway

This case highlights the complex balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches, as well as the ongoing debate over the legality of fees imposed by local governments. The outcome could have significant financial and political implications across South Carolina.