The South Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled to reverse a lower court's decision to certify a class of inmates who alleged they were sexually assaulted while in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) and the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (SCDJJ). This ruling significantly affects the legal rights of thousands of inmates who may have sought collective action against the state for their claims. The decision emphasizes the complexities involved in class action lawsuits, particularly in cases involving individual circumstances.
The case, Calvin Henson v. SCDC, was filed by Calvin Henson and several other inmates who claimed that prison officials were negligent in preventing sexual assaults within their facilities. The Supreme Court's decision, filed on July 22, 2026, has implications for how similar cases may be handled in the future and underscores the challenges of proving negligence in a class action context.
The parties involved in this case include Calvin Henson, Daniel James Collins, Jason Robinson, and Russell Taylor, who are inmates at SCDC and SCDJJ. They filed the lawsuit in their individual capacities as well as representatives of a larger class of inmates who allegedly experienced sexual violence while incarcerated. The plaintiffs argued that the prison systems failed to implement adequate policies and procedures to protect them from sexual assaults, which they claimed could have been prevented with proper staffing and enforcement of existing regulations.
The dispute escalated when Henson filed a motion to certify a class under Rule 23(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. He sought to define the class as all individuals under the custody of SCDC or SCDJJ from 2012 to the present who were victims of sexual assault. The circuit court initially agreed, certifying two classes based on the allegations. However, the SCDC and SCDJJ appealed the certification, leading to the Supreme Court's involvement.
The Supreme Court ruled to reverse the circuit court's certification order, stating that the case should proceed only in the individual capacity of each named plaintiff. The court emphasized that the class definitions created by the lower court would require numerous mini-trials to determine class membership, which would overwhelm the court system and defeat the efficiencies typically sought in class action lawsuits. The court noted, "The task would—to put it mildly—overwhelm the court." This highlights the difficulties in managing large class actions, particularly when individual circumstances vary significantly.
The ruling was made by Justice Few, who articulated the challenges of proving negligence on a class-wide basis. The court pointed out that each potential class member would need to establish their individual claims, which would require separate factual determinations regarding whether each inmate was indeed assaulted and whether the prison officials were negligent in preventing those assaults. The court noted that the complexities involved in proving negligence and causation for each individual would make a class action unmanageable.
This decision has significant implications for future cases involving similar claims against state agencies. It reinforces the notion that while class actions can be an efficient way to handle large numbers of similar claims, they must also meet certain legal standards, including commonality and predominance. The ruling indicates a stricter interpretation of these requirements, which may make it more challenging for plaintiffs in similar situations to pursue collective action.
The ruling also raises questions about the future of individual claims made by inmates who may now have to pursue their cases separately. This could lead to a fragmented legal approach, where each inmate must navigate the legal system on their own, potentially complicating their ability to seek justice and compensation for their experiences.
Looking ahead, the decision can be appealed, but it is unclear if the plaintiffs will pursue that route. The court's ruling effectively closes the door on the class action approach for this case, but it may open discussions about how individual claims can be effectively managed in the future. There may also be related cases pending that could further explore the issues of inmate rights and the responsibilities of correctional institutions in preventing sexual violence.