Case Name: ABBEVILLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. The STATE of South Carolina, et al., of whom Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate and as a representative of the South Carolina Senate and James H. Lucas, as Speaker of the House of Representatives and as a representative of the South Carolina House of Representatives are, Respondents-Appellants, and State of South Carolina, Nikki R. Haley, as Governor of the State of South Carolina, are, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 2015-11-05
Citations: 415 S.C. 19
Docket Number: Appellate Case No. 2007-065159
Parties: ABBEVILLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. The STATE of South Carolina, et al., of whom Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate and as a representative of the South Carolina Senate and James H. Lucas, as Speaker of the House of Representatives and as a representative of the South Carolina House of Representatives are, Respondents-Appellants, and State of South Carolina, Nikki R. Haley, as Governor of the State of South Carolina, are, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 415
Pages: 19–22

Head Matter:
780 S.E.2d 609
ABBEVILLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. The STATE of South Carolina, et al., of whom Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate and as a representative of the South Carolina Senate and James H. Lucas, as Speaker of the House of Representatives and as a representative of the South Carolina House of Representatives are, Respondents-Appellants, and State of South Carolina, Nikki R. Haley, as Governor of the State of South Carolina, are, Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2007-065159.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Nov. 5, 2015.

Opinion:
Justice KITTREDGE.
I adhere to my dissenting opinion and view that this Court has egregiously violated fundamental separation of powers principles by involving itself in a matter that lies exclusively in the Legislative Branch. While 1 would join the majority in vacating its September 24, 2015 order, I certainly would not replace it with a version that ostensibly violates separation of powers less. The principle of separation of powers demands complete adherence and countenances not the slightest transgression. I would deny the motion of the Plaintiff Districts.
s/Jean H. Toal, C.J.
s/Donald W. Beatty, J.
s/Kaye G. Hearn, J.
s/Costa M. Pleicones, J.
s/John W. Kittredge, J.