|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
The fast-moving legal showdown over whether South Carolina must hand over its voter registration database to Donald Trump‘s Department of Justice (DOJ) reached a major turning point this week — with the state’s high court siding against a circuit court judge who tried to block the state’s election officials from handing over the information.
On Thursday (September 11, 2025), the S.C. supreme court unanimously reversed a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction issued earlier this month by circuit court judge Diane Goodstein.
Goodstein’s order (.pdf) – which the justices determined was “clearly erroneous” – temporarily enjoined the S.C. Election Commission (SCVotes.gov) from releasing its voter files to the feds.
The justices also made it clear governor Henry McMaster could not be forced to testify in the case – absent a showing that his testimony was truly necessary.
“Respondent failed to show the governor has unique knowledge or information about this matter that cannot be obtained elsewhere,” the justices concluded in their order (.pdf). “Therefore, no subpoena for his testimony may be issued without first demonstrating to the circuit court that the attendance of the governor is warranted under law.”
***
RELATED | FEDERAL VOTER DATA FIGHT LANDS IN S.C. COURTS
***
The ruling was a win for Trump, McMaster and the SCGOP – and a defeat for South Carolina Democrats and their allies who sought to block the voter transfer (and drag McMaster and his appointed election commissioners into court).
At issue is the DOJ’s recent request for the names, addresses, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and Social Security digits of more than 3.3 million registered voters — data the agency claims is essential in enforcing Trump’s March 25, 2025 executive order targeting “non-citizen voter registration.”
In prioritizing enforcement of this federal directive, U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi was instructed to obtain “state-issued identification records and driver license databases.” In seeking this information, Trump’s order instructed Bondi to “enter into information-sharing agreements, to the maximum extent possible, with the chief state election official or multi-member agency of each state.”
McMaster and other ranking Republicans have urged the state to comply. Democrats – and some election officials – have sought to block the release of the data.
***
While Goodstein’s order was a big win for them, it failed to stand up under judicial scrutiny. Under Rule 65 of the S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, temporary restraining orders must define the injury, explain why the harm is irreparable and justify issuing relief without notice to the other side.
Goodstein’s order, the justices said, failed on all counts. It merely stated the plaintiff — Anne Crook of Calhoun County — would suffer “irreparable damage” if her personal data was released. The high court said such conclusory language fell “far short” of proving Crook was entitled to injunctive relief.
Goodstein also failed by issuing the order ex parte – or without notice to the state. The justices noted prior rulings which have held that restraining orders issued against the state without notice are improper.
“The decision on whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous,” justices noted.
Goodstein’s order obviously fit that bill…
Bottom line? Crook’s privacy arguments may still get a hearing — but for now, her initial victory has been erased.
***
RELATED | ELECTION INTEGRITY STANDOFF
***
Another flashpoint involved Crook’s attempt to subpoena governor McMaster to testify at a hearing. The supreme court applied the so-called “apex doctrine” — which holds that top-level government officials generally shouldn’t be compelled to testify unless they possess unique knowledge unavailable elsewhere.
McMaster, a staunch Trump ally, will not have to appear in court unless Crook can demonstrate his testimony is essential.
The justices further ordered SCVotes’ pending motion to change venue (.pdf) be resolved within ten days. State law requires cases involving state agencies to be heard in Richland County — not in Calhoun County, where Crook resides.
In reversing Goodstein’s order, the high court effectively cleared the way for the voter registration list to be turned over to DOJ — unless Crook’s attorney, Senate minority leader Brad Hutto, can craft a compelling argument which satisfies the justices’ new standard of review.
Keep it tuned to FITSNews as we continue to follow this case moving forward…
***
THE OPINION…
(S.C. Supreme Court)
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
9 comments
This state will literally do anything Trump tells its spineless governor to do. Say goodbye to any privacy you ever though you had. States like ours will willingly hand over to the goon squads all the information they need to track your every move. This is what you voted for.
“Say goodbye to any privacy you ever though you had.” Yeah…um.. we all kinda’ did that after the Patriot Act was passed about 20 years ago, then let Google and Microsoft run amok, then had the Obama Care interactive web application portal, and interspersed in there somewhere was the government running “Carnivore” software and all the other things that Snowden blew the whistle on. That cat has been out of the bag and climbing trees long before this little scuffle came along.
Senator Hutto can buy the info to use in his election campaign , but does not want the doj to have it.
What a joke !
Senator Hutto can buy this info for his campaign info, but does not want the DOJ to have it
Goldstein’s Order is “clearly erroneous”??? Hell No! Her Order is clearly FRIVOLOUS!
She should be prosecuted and jailed. She had NO jurisdiction. When there is No jurisdiction, a judge has No immunity. Case law is clear in that regard.
When her husband was the attorney for Dorchester County School District 2, he blocked the release of the names of the district’s employees under the SC Freedom of Information Act. The Act is clear, that the names of government employees are NOT exempt from release. The ACT mandates upon request they SHALL be provided upon request by anyone making a request. Arnold and the School Board willfully and knowingly Violated the law. The SC Dept of Education was appalled by Goldstein’s and the School Board’s illegal conduct. Arnold should have been disbarred and the Board should have been punished by the SC State Ethics Commission.
You pave the way not the wave
True, but now I kinda want to see a paved wave. Gotta be one at a San Diego skate park somewhere!
I think South Carolina pays attention to Jenn Wood and Fitsnews.
Nice reporting.
What happened to SC? Sad to see the state government bending over backwards to allow the feds additional access to a state database of citizen’s private data.