Presbyterian College to host Supreme Court of South Carolina sessions and free legal clinic during two-day visit. Palmetto LEADER mobile law office will offer free wills and powers of attorney for qualifying residents
When the Supreme Court of South Carolina convenes a special term at Presbyterian College later this spring, the event will offer more than a rare chance to watch the state’s highest court in action. It will also bring free legal services to local residents and highlight the real-world issues that come before the court.
The Supreme Court will hold two days of oral arguments in Belk Auditorium on March 31 and April 1, hearing four cases and answering questions from students after each session. Proceedings will begin at 10 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. each day, giving students, educators and community members an inside look at the appellate process and the role of the judiciary in South Carolina government.
In addition to the court sessions, a mobile legal clinic from the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law Pro Bono Program will provide free legal assistance to area residents.
Free legal clinic offered through Palmetto LEADER
The Palmetto LEADER mobile law office will be parked outside the Harrington-Peachtree Center on the Presbyterian College campus from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on March 31.
Volunteer attorneys and USC law students will provide free assistance with wills and powers of attorney to qualified residents. The mobile clinic is part of the law school’s effort to expand access to legal services in communities across South Carolina, particularly in areas where residents may have difficulty obtaining legal help.
The clinic’s presence during the Supreme Court’s visit underscores a broader theme of the event: bringing the law directly to the public while giving students an opportunity to see how the justice system works both in the courtroom and in the community.
Four cases scheduled during special session
Over the two-day visit, the justices will hear four cases covering a range of legal issues, from civil liability and self-defense laws to criminal appeals and post-conviction claims.
March 31 — Session I (10 a.m.)
The Court will hear Antoinet Moore, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of David J. Wilson v. Green’s Grocery, LLC and Mahmoud A. Yousef. The case centers on a fatal shooting at a convenience store and whether immunity granted to a store employee under South Carolina’s Protection of Persons and Property Act also shields the store owner and business from civil liability.
March 31 — Session II (11:30 a.m.)
In consolidated cases involving Quinterris Javon Carmichael and Tirik Jaquan Johnson-Epps, the Court will consider whether a trial judge committed reversible error by refusing to individually poll jurors after their guilty verdict in a murder case. The defendants argue that denying the request violated their legal rights and warrants a new trial.
April 1 — Session III (10 a.m.)
The Court will hear Bayan Aleksey v. State of South Carolina, a post-conviction relief case involving a man sentenced to death for the 1997 killing of a South Carolina Highway Patrol officer. Aleksey argues he should not face the death penalty because he is intellectually disabled, while the state maintains the lower court correctly rejected that claim.
April 1 — Session IV (11:30 a.m.)
In Maurice Roberts v. State of South Carolina, the Court will examine whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was violated when his attorney failed to object to jury instructions regarding intent in an attempted murder charge. The case raises questions about whether trial counsel should have anticipated a later ruling clarifying that specific intent to kill is required under state law.
Rare opportunity for students
Following each oral argument, the justices will take questions from students attending the sessions, including students from Upstate public schools. The format allows students to learn about the judicial system directly from members of the state’s highest court and to gain insight into how appellate decisions are made.
The Supreme Court is composed of Chief Justice John W. Kittredge and four associate justices—John Cannon Few, George C. James Jr., D. Garrison Hill and Letitia H. Verdin.
One justice also has a connection to Presbyterian College: Justice Verdin’s father, Harry Hamilton, was a Presbyterian College student-athlete who played quarterback and pitcher from 1951 to 1955.
Open to the public
All sessions in Belk Auditorium are free and open to the public, offering the community a chance to witness appellate arguments and observe the judicial branch at work.
With the addition of the Palmetto LEADER mobile legal clinic available on March 31, the two-day visit will provide both an educational experience for students and a practical service for the community—demonstrating how the law functions not only in courtrooms but also in everyday life.
###
SC Supreme Court rules Amazon must pay state for uncollected back taxes
BY: JESSICA HOLDMAN - MARCH 18, 2026 12:50 PM
COLUMBIA — Amazon must pay South Carolina millions in uncollected sales taxes, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
The justices’ 3-2 decision decided a decade-old dispute between the online retail giant and the state Department of Revenue over whether Amazon should have collected state sales taxes on behalf of third-party sellers on its website.
Lawyers for Amazon declined to comment on the decision, citing law firm policy.
The case is specifically over $12.5 million owed in the first three months of 2016, the months immediately after the expiration of a five-year sales tax exemption approved by the Legislature.
However, the ruling could actually result in Amazon owing more than $277 million tied to two separate pending cases, the state Department of Revenue said previously.
Amazon disputed the bill and has argued state tax code was unclear, and that it was the responsibility of those independent sellers to collect taxes from customers and pay the tax bill.
The company claimed it operates an online marketplace — that it did not own the goods and was not the seller. Rather, it was simply providing a platform.
The Administrative Law Court disagreed, as did the state Court of Appeals. And now, so has the state’s highest court.
“Amazon Services structured its business model in a way that provided it with comprehensive control over third-party transactions,” wrote Justice John Few. “This control was so significant that a third-party transaction could not occur on Amazon.com without actions taken by Amazon Services.”
By that logic, Few writes, Amazon was “engaged … in the business of selling,” making the company responsible for collecting taxes on sellers’ behalf.
Few was joined by justices Gary Hill and George James.
Chief Justice John Kittredge, on the other hand, believed Amazon had a point. State law could be interpreted both ways and long-standing precedent calls for ruling in favor of the taxpayer when there is doubt, he wrote in a dissenting opinion.
Acting Justice Courtney Clyburn Pope joined Kittredge in his dissent.
Amazon has actually already paid the disputed $12.5 million. It had to pay its tab before the Appeals Court would take up the case.
The bill kept growing, however, as Amazon still wasn’t collecting sales taxes from third-party sellers and sending it to Revenue. The company didn’t start making those collections until April 30, 2019.
According to two state audits, Amazon owes $277.2 million in back taxes and interest from April 1, 2016, through 2019. The second audit came as the Legislature debated a law on third-party sellers, signed by Gov. Henry McMaster on April 26, 2019.
Amazon has not paid that tab, a spokesman for the state Department of Revenue confirmed Wednesday.
The company had disputed both of those bills to the Administrative Law Court as well. Those cases had been put on hold pending Wednesday’s ruling.
Revenue Director Hartley Powell said he’s pleased that the court affirmed the agency’s position.
“The Supreme Court rightly rejected Amazon’s contention it was not engaged in the business of selling,” he said.
Prior to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2018, which reversed an earlier decision, companies needed a physical location in a state to be required to collect and pay taxes from sales within that state.
For Amazon, that meant once it built a distribution center in a state, it would need to collect taxes from online shoppers living there — unless it received an exemption, which it pursued in states nationwide.
South Carolina obliged, promising in 2010 a five-year exemption in exchange for creating at least 1,249 full-time jobs with health benefits and investing $90 million. The deal struck by the administration of then-Gov. Mark Sanford was almost undone after Gov. Nikki Haley took office in January 2011 and attempted to cancel it.
Organizations representing brick-and-mortar retailers opposed the deal as giving Amazon an unfair advantage. After the deal appeared dead, Amazon upped the ante to at least 2,000 full-time jobs with a $125 million investment and the Legislature ultimately approved the exemption over Haley’s objections.
The law resulted in Amazon building its first two distribution facilities in the state in 2011 and 2012 — one in West Columbia and one in Spartanburg.
When the sales tax exemption ended Dec. 31, 2015, Amazon began collecting sales taxes on purchases sold directly by Amazon and its affiliates but not third-party sellers on the website.
Those sellers had the option to pay an additional $40 monthly fee to Amazon to collect the taxes for them. But Amazon still sent the money to the seller to forward to Revenue. Many didn’t bother.
Jessica Holdman writes about the economy, workforce and higher education. Before joining the SC Daily Gazette, she was a business reporter for The Post and Courier.
SC Daily Gazette is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
