House Judiciary Committee gives H.4756 favorable report after hours of debate on school restroom rules

The South Carolina House Judiciary Committee voted to give H.4756 a favorable report as amended on a 14–7 voice and recorded vote after more than an hour of debate over how the bill would be enforced and which funds would be subject to penalties.

Mr. Moore, who presented the subcommittee report, said the legislation — prefiled by Representative Pope in December 2025 — “concerns safeguarding the physical privacy of minors and public school students of any age in vulnerable settings such as restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, and other spaces where a student or minor may be in a state of undress.” He told the committee the text largely mirrors Proviso 1.114 of the 2025‑26 South Carolina Appropriations Act and that much of the language has been in effect under the proviso for about two years.

Under H.4756 as amended, multi‑occupancy restrooms and changing facilities in public K‑12 schools and public institutions of higher learning would be designated for and used exclusively by persons of a single biological sex as observed or clinically verified at birth. The bill requires institutions to provide separate single‑occupancy areas for privacy, allows event‑ or temporary‑based exclusive designations (for example, using different locker rooms for home and away teams), and lists exceptions for custodial work, medical assistance, coaching when no one is undressed and emergencies. The amendment also ties statutory language to accommodations for disabled persons protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act and adds a severability clause.

The bill would prohibit requiring students on overnight trips to share sleeping quarters or multi‑occupancy restrooms with members of the opposite biological sex, with an exception for family members. It also includes a funding enforcement mechanism: “Any violations result in a penalty to 25% of the funds appropriated … used to support the institution’s operations,” language Mr. Moore said the amendment revised to reference the General Assembly to address a fiscal‑statement ambiguity.

Representative Bamberg questioned how that 25% would be applied. “Does that 25% penalty include funds that come from the United States Federal Government?” he asked, raising whether line‑item appropriations or funds routed through the Department of Education would be affected. Mr. Moore said the enforcement language follows other education bills and that his understanding is the penalty would be applied to the relevant line‑item appropriations, but he acknowledged the mechanics could be clarified before floor consideration.

Several members pressed the committee on enforcement details and unintended consequences. Representative King asked how schools would identify a person’s biological sex in public settings such as stadiums or spectator events; Mr. Moore responded that birth certificates are collected at school registration and that the Department of Education has issued guidance under the proviso. Representative Rose warned the bill could create perverse incentives and operational burdens, calling it “a sledgehammer to an anthill” and voicing concern about bystander reporting, harassment and how institutions would investigate claims. Mr. Moore emphasized the bill limits remedies to injunctive relief and attorney’s fees (no damages) and said reasonable‑steps defenses and available single‑occupancy facilities would limit liability.

Supporters said codifying the proviso into statute would make the policy more enforceable. Representative McCravey said past federal guidance prompted the proviso and that codifying the language would “make everybody understand what our position in South Carolina is.” Opponents raised drafting gaps, such as undefined terms like “young children,” potential fiscal consequences for under‑resourced districts and the possibility of frivolous litigation or unintended harassment.

Committee members also asked technical questions about how and when the 25% withholding would be assessed and whether it could compound; Mr. Moore said withholding would continue until a district returned to compliance but acknowledged some implementation details could be clarified by subsequent amendment language or Department of Education guidance.

Staff conducted a recorded roll call at the chair’s direction. The clerk announced the vote as 14 in favor, 7 opposed and 4 not voting, and the chair declared that H.4756 received a favorable report as amended. The committee adjourned and scheduled further business for the next meeting, where additional measures will be considered.

The next procedural step for H.4756 is that it will be reported out of the Judiciary Committee and, if received by the House, will be placed on the calendar for further consideration; the committee did not adopt floor‑stage clarifications on funding mechanics or complaint procedures during this session.