Keel, 032420 SCAGO, AGO 3204

• Case Date: March 24, 2020
• Court: South Carolina

Chief Mark A. Keel No. AGO 3204 No. 3204 South Carolina Attorney General Opinion State of South Carolina Office of the Attorney General March 24, 2020          Chief Mark A. Keel          South Carolina Law Enforcement Division          PO Box 21398          Columbia, SC 29221-1398          ALAN WILSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL.          Dear Chief Keel:          Pursuant to the direction of Governor Henry McMaster in Executive Order 2020-13, issued March 23, 2020, you have consulted our Office in an effort to provide guidance to law enforcement regarding the interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section 16-7-10 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. Of course any application of this criminal statute necessarily will depend on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. In general, we advise the following.          Section 16-7-10 should be applied such that gatherings involving established, fundamental constitutional protections should be authorized, even if prudence dictates they be discouraged. See City of Maquoketa v. Russell, 484 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 1992). We have previously opined that when a constitutional right is "fundamental in nature, the courts then invoke a so-called strict scrutiny test—thereby requiring that in order to survive constitutional scrutiny, the statute or ordinance be narrowly drawn to serve compelling governmental interests." Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 1994 WL 136189 (March 3, 1994) (citing Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1331, 22 L.Ed.2d 600, 615 (1969)).          Some examples o|` these fundamental constitutional protections are the freedom of religion inherent in a church or other religious meeting, or a wedding or funeral; the constitutional protections of the family unit; and the freedom of assembly for political purposes. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993); Carey v. Population Services, Intern., 431 U.S. 678 (1977); Hague v. Committee v. Indus. Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939). These...