Can a South Carolina AG opinion order a state board to take a specific action, or is it only advice?

Plain-English summary

The South Carolina Corn Board's attorney asked the AG to clarify an earlier opinion about the board's assessment funds. He wanted to make clear that the March 27, 2025 opinion did not direct the Corn Board to close its external bank account and transfer funds to a state-held account. The AG agreed on that point while standing by its earlier legal analysis.

The May 1 clarification says AG opinions are advisory interpretations. They lack a court's authority, do not direct parties to act or refrain from acting, and do not bind courts. Specifically, neither the Corn Board nor the Agriculture Commission, Department of Agriculture, or their personnel were directed to act by the March 27 opinion. If the board and commission cannot agree on handling assessment funds, the AG says a court is the proper forum to resolve their dispute.

What this means for you

If you serve on the Corn Board or Agriculture Commission

Read the March 27 opinion as the AG's interpretation, rather than as an instruction to close an account or move money. The May 1 opinion leaves that interpretation intact and expressly disclaims a directive to either entity. The AG suggests a composite reservoir bank account as a possible alternative if it is available and satisfies both sides; the opinion does not establish that the Code or regulations authorize it.

If you advise another South Carolina agency

This opinion explains what an AG opinion itself does: it offers legal interpretation but does not exercise the authority of a court or command a party to act. When discussing an AG opinion with decision makers, identify its legal conclusion and any limits the AG places on what that conclusion resolves.

If you are reporting on this dispute

The clarification says the March 27 opinion remains unchanged, but it is not an order to the Corn Board to close its external account. The AG points the board and Agriculture Commission toward court if they cannot reach a mutually acceptable resolution over the assessment funds.

Common questions

Did the AG order the Corn Board to close its external account?
No. The May 1 opinion states that the office "did not and cannot direct" the board to take a particular action through the earlier opinion.

Did the AG withdraw its March 27 legal opinion?
No. The office says it stands by the earlier opinion and that it "remains unchanged." The clarification concerns its advisory effect.

Are South Carolina AG opinions binding on courts?
No. This opinion expressly says they are not binding on courts and cites Charleston County Sch. Dist. v. Harrell for that point.

Did the AG approve a composite reservoir bank account?
The office says it found references to such accounts in budget resolutions but none in the Code or regulations. It presents an account as a possible practical option if it is available and acceptable to both sides.

What if the board and commission cannot agree?
The AG says court is the proper and necessary forum to resolve their disagreement over assessment funds and related questions.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion cites S.C. Code § 1-7-90 and §§ 1-7-100, -110 for the AG's duties to give opinions or advice to specified public officials and bodies. It describes those opinions as advisory interpretations by the executive branch's chief legal officer. Its central distinction is between such an interpretation and a court order. The Corn Board clarification applies that distinction to the earlier dispute over where the board's assessment funds should be held.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code § 1-7-90 and §§ 1-7-100, -110: advisory opinion and advice duties described by the AG.
• State ex rel. Wolfe v. Sanders, 118 S.C. 498, 110 S.E. 808 (1920): cited for the AG's executive legal role.
• Charleston County Sch. Dist. v. Harrell, 393 S.C. 552, 713 S.E.2d 604 (2011): cited for the nonbinding status of AG opinions in court.
• Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2025 WL 1012406 (March 27, 2025): the earlier Corn Board opinion being clarified.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-clarifying-march-27-2025-opinion-to-the-south-carolina-commissioner-on-agriculture-and-chair-of-the-agriculture-commission-of-south-carolina-of/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/hriojwpx/moorej-os-11019-final-opinion-5-1-2025.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 1, 2025

S. Jahue Moore, Esquire
Moore Bradley Myers
PO Box 5709
West Columbia, SC 29171

Dear Mr. Moore:

Attorney General Alan Wilson referred your April 22, 2025, letter to the Opinions section for a response. On behalf of the South Carolina Corn Board, you ask that we revisit our March 27, 2025, opinion to the South Carolina Commissioner on Agriculture and Chair of the Agriculture Commission of South Carolina to make it clear that we have not directed the South Carolina Corn Board to close its external bank account and remit the funds to the state-held account established for the board. Our opinion can be located at Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2025 WL 1012406 (March 27, 2025). Although we stand by our original opinion, we did not and cannot direct the South Carolina Corn Board to take any particular action.

Law/Analysis

By statute, the Attorney General is charged with offering opinions on questions of law at the request of the Governor or the General Assembly. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-7-90 (Rev. 2005). The Attorney General is also required to advise solicitors regarding their duties and consult with and advise the Public Service Commission and state officers on questions relating to their official business. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-7-100, -110 (Rev. 2005). These advisory opinions are interpretations of the law by the chief legal officer of the Executive Branch. See State ex rel. Wolfe v. Sanders, 118 S.C. 498, 110 S.E. 808, 810 (1920) ("the Attorney General is the highest executive law officer of the state."). While we often attempt to evaluate how a court might handle a legal issue, the opinions of this office do not have the authority of a court and do not direct parties to take, cease, or refrain from any particular action. Further, the opinions of this office are not binding on a court. Charleston County Sch. Dist. v. Harrell, 393 S.C. 552, 560-561, 713 S.E.2d 604, 609 (2011); Op. S.C. Att'y Gen. 2014 WL 1398584 at *12 (March 25, 2014). To be clear, our opinion does not direct the South Carolina Corn Board, the Agriculture Commission of South Carolina, the South Carolina Department of Agriculture, or any individual employed by or associated with any of those entities to take any particular action.

Before we issued our March 27, 2025, opinion in this matter, we were advised that a composite reservoir bank account might be an option to hold the assessment funds of the commodity board. We found several references to this type of account in budget resolutions, but none in the South Carolina Code or the South Carolina Code of State Regulations. If this type of account is an option and it satisfies the concerns of the commodity board and the Agriculture Commission, it may prove to be a cost-effective alternative to litigation.

If, however, the Agriculture Commission and the Corn Board cannot reach a mutually acceptable resolution for the handling of assessment funds, then as discussed in our opinion, court is the proper and necessary forum to resolve this issue and all related questions.

Conclusion

Our March 27, 2025, opinion regarding the Commission on Agriculture and the South Carolina Corn board remains unchanged. However, the opinion should not be seen as directing any entity or individual to take a particular action.

Sincerely,

Sabrina C. Todd
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General

1 Your April 22 letter also serves to withdraw your March 24, 2025 opinion request, which we received the day after we issued our earlier opinion.