If my child goes to a private school outside of South Carolina, can he or she play on a South Carolina public high school sports team under the state's 'Tim Tebow' athletic-access proviso?
Plain-English summary
The South Carolina High School League Commissioner asked the AG a narrow question. Proviso 1.112 of the 2025-2026 state budget (Act No. 69, 2025) requires school districts that receive state funds to let private school students participate in interscholastic athletics at the public school for which they are zoned. Subsections (A)(1) through (A)(4) set the conditions: residence in the attendance zone, the independent school's relationship to the SCHSL, and whether the sport is offered at the assigned public school. None of those subsections expressly say the independent school must be located in South Carolina. So can a student who attends a private school across the border in Georgia or North Carolina demand access to a South Carolina public school's team?
The AG, again through Assistant Attorney General David Leggett, said no. The introductory clause of subsection (A) (the "chapeau") solves the question: it limits the proviso to "individual students who attend independent schools in this State." That phrase qualifies all of the subsections that follow. Plain-language statutory interpretation under Hodges v. Rainey controls. Because the chapeau geographically scopes the proviso to South Carolina independent schools, an out-of-state private school student cannot use Proviso 1.112 to get on a South Carolina public team.
What this means for you
If you are a parent of a student at an out-of-state private school
Proviso 1.112 does not give your child access to South Carolina public school athletics. Two paths remain:
- The South Carolina public school could choose to open team participation under its own discretionary admission rules (subject to SCHSL eligibility rules), but it is not required to.
- Your child could enroll in a South Carolina independent school or in the public school for which you are zoned, in which case the proviso (or normal eligibility) would apply.
This is a state-funded program, and the legislature's geographic limit is enforceable.
If you are a public school athletic director
If a parent points to Proviso 1.112 in support of their out-of-state private school student joining your team, you can decline based on this AG opinion. The chapeau's "in this State" language settles the question in your favor. Document the residence (the student must be zoned for your school) and document the school the student attends.
If you are at the South Carolina High School League
The opinion confirms your prior practice and gives a clear citable answer when out-of-state private school families ask. It does not change anything else about Proviso 1.112's operation; it just clarifies the geographic boundary.
If you are a school district attorney
The AG opinion is persuasive but not binding. If a family sues to force participation, you have a textual argument anchored in statutory interpretation principles, plus an AG opinion to back it up. The legislature's choice to limit the proviso to in-state independent schools is rationally related to the state-funding-tied conditions and is unlikely to be struck down.
Common questions
Q: What is Proviso 1.112?
A: A budget proviso (Act No. 69, 2025) that bars school districts receiving state funds from denying private school students the chance to play on the public school team for which they are zoned, subject to several conditions (residence, the independent school's role, sport availability, etc.). It is South Carolina's version of a Tim Tebow law for private school athletes.
Q: What about homeschool students?
A: Proviso 1.112 in its current form addresses students who "attend independent schools." Homeschool participation is governed by other state and SCHSL provisions and is not the subject of this AG opinion.
Q: What if my child's out-of-state private school does not exist in any in-state form?
A: The proviso still does not apply. The chapeau is geographically scoped, not subject-matter scoped. A unique out-of-state institution does not get a workaround.
Q: What if my child attends an out-of-state online private school?
A: Online schools have a complicated geographic identity, but the AG opinion focuses on whether the school is "in this State." An out-of-state online provider would generally not qualify. Talk to the SCHSL or a school district lawyer about your specific case.
Q: Why does the chapeau control the subsections?
A: Standard statutory drafting: an introductory phrase that defines the scope of the section qualifies every subsection that follows, unless the subsections clearly expand the scope. None of the (A)(1)-(4) subsections expand to out-of-state schools, so the chapeau's geographic limit holds.
Q: Could the General Assembly change this?
A: Yes. A future budget could rewrite Proviso 1.112 to drop the "in this State" language. Until that happens, the geographic limit applies.
Background and statutory framework
Proviso 1.112 sits inside the annual state budget (Act No. 69, 2025) rather than the permanent code. Provisos are budget law: they are conditions on how state funds may be spent and they expire at the end of the fiscal year unless reenacted. Many states use provisos for issues that may need to be revisited annually.
The proviso conditions district receipt of state funds on opening interscholastic athletic programs to private school students under specified circumstances. Subsection (A)(1) ties access to the student's residence in a school's attendance zone. Subsection (A)(2) addresses the relationship between the independent school and the South Carolina High School League. Subsection (A)(4) limits access to sports that the public school actually offers. The chapeau preceding all subsections constrains the universe of eligible students to those who "attend independent schools in this State."
The opinion's analysis applies Hodges v. Rainey and State v. Hudson for the proposition that legislative intent is found in plain language. The chapeau is unambiguous, so no further interpretive tools are needed.
Citations and references
Statutory authority:
- Proviso 1.112, Act No. 69, 2025 (SC budget for 2025-2026)
- SC Budget and Provisos
Cases:
- Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (2000)
- State v. Hudson, 366 S.C. 237, 519 S.E.2d 577 (Ct. App. 1999)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-regarding-the-application-of-budget-proviso-1-112-to-students-who-attend-independent-schools-outside-the-state-of-south-carolina/
- Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/axclq2kb/singletonj-os-11058-correct-final-opinion-9-23-2025.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
September 23, 2025
Dr. Jerome P. Singleton
Commissioner
South Carolina High School League
PO Box 211575
Columbia, SC 29221-6575
Dear Dr. Singleton:
Attorney General Alan Wilson referred your letter to the Opinions section for a response.
In your letter you ask whether Proviso 1.112 of the 2025-2026 state budget would apply to a
student who attends a private school outside of South Carolina but seeks to participate in an
interscholastic athletic program at a public school in South Carolina. As discussed below,
Proviso 1.112 is limited to students who “attend independent schools in this State.”
Proviso 1.112 of the 2025-2026 state budget allows students who attend independent
schools to participate in the interscholastic athletic programs of the public schools for which they
are zoned under certain conditions. See § 1.112, Act No. 69, 2025. You note in your letter that
the restrictions on participation listed in subsection A address infer alia the student’s residence,
§ 1.112(A)(1); the independent school’s involvement in the South Carolina High School League,
§ 1.112(A)(2); and whether the sport is offered at the public school located in the attendance
zone where the student resides, § 1.112(A)(4); but, the subsections do not, either individually or
together, specify whether the independent school which the student attends must be located in
the State of South Carolina. However, the chapeau of subsection (A) reads, “No funds
appropriated or authorized in this act that are distributed to a school district may be used to deny
individual students who attend independent schools in this State....” § 1.112(A) (emphasis
added).
When construing a statute, the primary goal is to understand and give effect to the intent
of the legislature. Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). Where
possible, legislative intent “should be ascertained primarily from the plain language of the
statute.” State v. Hudson, 366 S.C. 237, 246, 519 S.E.2d 577, 581 (Ct. App. 1999). We believe
the plain language of Proviso 1.112 permits us to answer your question without resorting to other
rules of statutory construction.
MEMBERT C. DENNIS OUILDING © POST OFFICE ROX E1549 « COLUMBLA, 83C 29911-1849 s TeLepnome f02-734.2990 PACEIMILS 603-253-6223
A EEPSAUDES DU 2 Oey At oe PACEIMILE 6G3-353.6923
Dr. Jerome P. Singleton
Page 2
September 23, 2025
The introductory phrase of subsection A only requires school districts receiving state
funds to allow participation in interscholastic athletic programs pursuant to Proviso 1.112 by
students who attend an independent school in the State of South Carolina. Therefore,
Proviso 1.112 would not apply to a student who attends a private school outside of South
Carolina but seeks to participate at a public school in South Carolina.
Sincerely,
David Leggett .
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Bo) a
Solicitor General Emeritus