South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has expressed a clear opposition to local (municipal or county-level) hate crime ordinances, arguing that they exceed the authority granted to local governments under state law and could be deemed unconstitutional. This position was formalized in an advisory legal opinion he issued on October 10, 2025, in response to a request from the city of Greenwood, which was considering adopting such an ordinance:
The rationale for Wilson’s opinion
Lack of Statewide Authority: South Carolina is one of only two U.S. states without a comprehensive statewide hate crime law, leaving the definition and punishment of such crimes exclusively under the purview of the state General Assembly. Wilson asserts that municipalities cannot create penalties for bias-motivated crimes (e.g., those based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender) because doing so would criminalize conduct that is not illegal under state law.
Constitutional Concerns: He warns that these local laws likely violate the South Carolina Constitution’s “uniformity clause,” which requires uniform application of criminal laws across the state. Additionally, they risk infringing on First Amendment protections by potentially punishing protected speech or thought rather than just criminal acts. Wilson notes that while such ordinances are presumed valid until challenged, the state Supreme Court would likely strike them down if litigated.
Support for Home Rule with Limits: Wilson emphasizes his office’s general endorsement of local “home rule” governance but draws a firm line: local entities cannot legislate in areas preempted by state law, such as criminal penalties for hate-motivated acts.
Moral Acknowledgment but Legal Rejection: While condemning hatred and intimidation as “repulsive and hav[ing] no place in society,” Wilson maintains that any criminal response must come from the state legislature, not local governments. This opinion has prompted pushback from over 20 South Carolina localities that have already enacted similar measures, including Richland County, Irmo, Orangeburg County, and Spartanburg, though some officials (e.g., Spartanburg’s city attorney) have interpreted the opinion differently and proceeded anyway.
Wilson’s view aligns with broader Republican resistance in the state legislature to a statewide hate crime bill, which has failed repeatedly since the 2015 Emanuel AME Church shooting.
