SC high court orders Gov. Sanford to request money

Legal News Feed

South Carolina's Supreme Court ordered Gov. Mark Sanford on Thursday to request $700 million in federal stimulus money aimed primarily at struggling schools, ending months of wrangling with legislators who accused him of playing politics with people's lives.


The nation's most vocal anti-bailout governor had refused to take the money designated for the state over the next two years, facing down protesters and legislators who passed a budget requiring him to. While other Republican governors had taken issue with requesting money from the $787 billion federal stimulus package, Sanford was the first to defend in court his desire to reject the money.

But he said Thursday he will not appeal the Supreme Court ruling and plans to sign paperwork to request the money Monday.

Educators quickly hailed the court decision. They had predicted hundreds of teachers would lose jobs and colleges would see steep tuition increases without the money, though sharp budget cuts will still take a toll.

"Finally. It took way too long. It was so unnecessary and took so long to do what 49 other states figured out how to do a long time ago, but finally is better than not at all. It will allow districts to immediately begin to reconstitute programs and fill positions they didn't think they could fill," state Education Superintendent Jim Rex said.

While Sanford raised the issue, it was Casey Edwards, a Chapin High School student graduating Friday, who brought it to the state's highest court. She beamed as she told reporters she "was very excited that our schools and our teachers and our education system will be getting the funds that are so desperately needed here in South Carolina."

Related listings

  • Obama reverses Bush immigration lawyer rule

    Obama reverses Bush immigration lawyer rule

    Legal News Feed 06/04/2009

    A rule limiting access to lawyers for immigrants facing deportation has been tossed out by the Obama administration. The rule was issued in the waning days of the Bush administration, angering immigrants rights groups that immediately sought to persu...

  • Minn. high court hears Senate case arguments

    Minn. high court hears Senate case arguments

    Legal News Feed 06/01/2009

    Republican Norm Coleman is asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to toss out a lower-court ruling that gave Democrat Al Franken a victory in the state's U.S. Senate race. Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg argued before the high court Monday that counties w...

  • Sotomayor made a law firm apologize

    Sotomayor made a law firm apologize

    Legal News Feed 05/28/2009

     As a senior at Yale Law School, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor forced a Washington law firm to apologize for what she considered discriminatory questions that a partner asked about her Puerto Rican heritage during a recruiting dinner. Th...

New York Commercial Litigation Law Firm - Woods Lonergan PLLC

Founded in 1993 by Managing Partner James F. Woods, Woods Lonergan PLLC has built a strong reputation as a resourceful and industrious firm that provides clients with clear, concise, and straightforward answers to their most challenging legal issues. Partner Lawrence R. Lonergan, who joined the firm in 2008, has been a friend and colleague to Mr. Woods for over 40 years and shares the same business philosophy. Woods Lonergan PLLC’s collective experience and expertise enables the firm to expeditiously and effectively analyze the increasing challenges clients face in an evolving business and legal world, in many instances, avoiding unnecessary time and expense to our clients. Our mission is simple: provide cutting-edge expertise and sound advice in select areas of the law for corporate and business clients. We thrive on providing each client with personalized attention, forceful representation, and a collaborative team effort that embraces collective knowledge.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read