South Carolina Code of Regulations Chapter 119 - UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
I. Overview of Chapter 119 – University of South Carolina
Chapter 119 of the South Carolina Code of Regulations governs the internal administration, authority, and governance of the University of South Carolina, a public state institution. These regulations are adopted under the authority of the USC Board of Trustees and operate within the framework of South Carolina administrative and constitutional law.
Because USC is a state agency, its actions are subject to:
South Carolina administrative law
State constitutional requirements
Federal constitutional protections (due process, equal protection, First Amendment)
II. Purpose and Legal Authority
A. Statutory Authority
Chapter 119 regulations are issued under:
S.C. Code Ann. § 59-117-10 et seq., which establishes USC and vests governance authority in the Board of Trustees.
The regulations:
Define how USC exercises delegated governmental authority
Have the force of law once properly promulgated
Bind students, employees, faculty, and administrators
III. Major Regulatory Areas Covered in Chapter 119
While individual section numbering varies, Chapter 119 typically addresses the following core areas:
1. Governance and Board Authority
Key principles:
The Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority.
The Board may delegate powers to:
The President
Chancellors
Faculty governance bodies
Delegation does not eliminate Board responsibility.
Legal effect:
Actions taken within delegated authority are legally binding.
Actions outside authority may be invalidated by courts.
2. University Administration
Regulations define:
Authority of the President
Administrative hierarchy
Campus-level governance
Decision-making procedures
Administrative law principle:
USC officials must:
Act within the scope of granted authority
Follow established procedures
Avoid arbitrary or capricious decision-making
3. Faculty Status, Employment, and Tenure
Chapter 119 often incorporates or authorizes:
Faculty manuals
Tenure and promotion standards
Grievance procedures
Legal significance:
Faculty handbooks can form implied contracts
Tenured faculty have a property interest in continued employment
4. Student Status and Discipline
The regulations authorize:
Student codes of conduct
Disciplinary procedures
Appeals processes
Key legal rule:
Because USC is a public university, students are entitled to constitutional due process in disciplinary actions.
5. Financial Administration and Property
Includes:
Control of university funds
Procurement authority
Management of public property
USC funds are public funds, subject to:
State fiscal accountability rules
Audit and transparency requirements
IV. Constitutional and Administrative Law Principles Applied to Chapter 119
A. Due Process (U.S. and South Carolina Constitutions)
USC must provide:
Notice of charges or adverse action
A meaningful opportunity to be heard
Fair and unbiased decision-makers
This applies to:
Student discipline
Faculty termination
Serious employment sanctions
B. Equal Protection
USC regulations must:
Be applied uniformly
Avoid discriminatory enforcement
Have rational bases (or higher scrutiny if fundamental rights are involved)
C. First Amendment Constraints
As a public institution, USC:
Cannot punish protected speech
Must respect academic freedom
May regulate time, place, and manner of expression if reasonable and viewpoint-neutral
V. Case Law Interpreting University Regulations (Including USC and Similar Institutions)
1. Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education
(Federal 5th Circuit, persuasive authority)
Holding:
Public university students are entitled to due process before serious disciplinary action.
Relevance to Chapter 119:
Any USC regulation allowing suspension or expulsion must include:
Notice
Opportunity to respond
2. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz
(U.S. Supreme Court)
Holding:
Academic dismissals require less formal process than disciplinary dismissals.
Application:
USC may use streamlined procedures for academic decisions, but must still act fairly and in good faith.
3. Perry v. Sindermann
(U.S. Supreme Court)
Holding:
An implied contract or mutual understanding can create a property interest even without formal tenure.
Application to USC:
Faculty handbooks and long-standing practices authorized under Chapter 119 may create enforceable rights.
4. McMillan v. South Carolina Department of Corrections
(South Carolina Supreme Court – administrative law principle)
Holding:
Agencies must follow their own regulations.
Relevance:
If USC fails to follow Chapter 119 or its own adopted procedures, courts may:
Reverse decisions
Order reinstatement
Award relief
5. Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing
(U.S. Supreme Court)
Holding:
Courts defer to academic decisions unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or made in bad faith.
Application:
USC decisions under Chapter 119 receive judicial deference, but only if rational and procedurally proper.
VI. Judicial Review of USC Actions Under Chapter 119
Courts reviewing USC actions will ask:
Did the university act within its legal authority?
Did it follow its own regulations?
Were constitutional rights respected?
Was the decision arbitrary or unsupported by evidence?
Failure on any of these can invalidate USC action.
VII. Practical Legal Impact of Chapter 119
Chapter 119:
Functions as binding administrative law
Shapes contractual rights of faculty and students
Limits discretion of administrators
Provides enforceable procedural protections
Violations can result in:
Injunctions
Reinstatement
Declaratory relief
In rare cases, damages under federal law
VIII. Summary
South Carolina Code of Regulations, Chapter 119:
Governs the University of South Carolina as a public agency
Has the force of law
Is constrained by constitutional protections
Is interpreted using established administrative and education law case precedents
Courts respect university autonomy only when regulations are followed and rights are protected.
RELATED Blog
comments