The South Carolina Heritage Act is a state law, codified at Section 10-1-165 of the South Carolina Code, that bars the removal, relocation, disturbance, or alteration of monuments and memorials on public property without approval from the General Assembly. It was enacted in 2000 as part of the compromise that moved the Confederate flag off the State House dome, narrowed by a 2021 state Supreme Court ruling that struck down its two-thirds supermajority requirement, and substantially expanded in 2026 to cover all public memorials and to add new enforcement tools.
What the Law Protects Now
As of May 2026, the Heritage Act reaches every memorial on state or local public property in South Carolina. The original statute listed specific categories: monuments to the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, “War Between the States,” Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, Native American history, and African-American history. It also barred renaming or rededicating any street, bridge, structure, park, or public area named for a historic figure or event.1Justia. S.C. Code Section 10-1-165 Act No. 224 of 2026 removed those category limits and now protects public memorials generally.
The 2026 expansion added several enforcement features. Private heritage organizations now have standing to sue over unauthorized removals. Courts can order restitution and may direct the state to withhold tax aid from local governments found in violation. The addition of informational plaques or digital codes, including QR codes, near a protected monument is prohibited.2News From the States. Proposal to Expand Heritage Act Protections to All Public Memorials Advances in SC Senate
Several carve-outs sit alongside those new teeth. Local governments get a 90-day grace period to correct a violation before a lawsuit can proceed. Museums, schools, libraries, and educational displays are exempt. Monuments may be relocated when a legitimate transportation or infrastructure project requires it.3Post and Courier. SC Heritage Act Enhanced to Protect Monuments The law reaches only public property; privately owned monuments fall outside it, a limit established in a 2007 case involving a war memorial in Greenwood.4Rosen Hagood. What’s Next for the S.C. Heritage Act
Governor Henry McMaster signed the 2026 expansion into law on May 19, 2026.5South Carolina Legislature. S. 508
Where the Law Came From
Bill 4895 was introduced in the House on April 11, 2000, and signed by Governor Jim Hodges on May 23, 2000.6South Carolina Legislature. H. 4895, South Carolina Heritage Act of 2000 It was the product of what the state Supreme Court later described as a “hard-fought compromise” over the Confederate Naval Jack, which had flown atop the State House dome since 1962.7Caselaw Findlaw. Pinckney v. Peeler The deal moved the flag off the dome and out of the legislative chambers on July 1, 2000, to a flagpole beside the Confederate Soldiers’ Monument on the State House grounds, and in exchange the legislature froze the state’s public commemorative landscape through the Heritage Act.8WIS-TV. A Brief History of the Heritage Act
That first flag arrangement did not last. After nine Black parishioners were murdered at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston on June 17, 2015, by a gunman who had posed with the Confederate flag, the General Assembly voted to take it down from the State House grounds entirely. The Senate voted 37–3 and the House 93–27, and the flag came down on July 10, 2015.9The State. How Nikki Haley Brought Down the Confederate Flag
The 2021 Supreme Court Ruling
The original Act required a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the General Assembly to amend or repeal its protections. That supermajority provision was challenged by Jennifer Pinckney, the widow of state Senator and Emanuel AME pastor Clementa Pinckney, together with Columbia City Councilman Howard Duvall and former state lawmaker Kay Patterson.10The State. SC Heritage Act Goes Before Supreme Court
In Pinckney v. Peeler, 434 S.C. 272, decided September 22, 2021, the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously struck down the two-thirds requirement in subsection 10-1-165(B). The court held that the General Assembly has plenary legislative power and may act by simple majority unless the state constitution says otherwise, and that the 2000 legislature “had no authority to restrict the power of future legislatures to act by majority vote.”11The State. SC Supreme Court Strikes Down Heritage Act Supermajority
The rest of the law stood. The court rejected arguments that the Act was an unconstitutional “special law” or violated home rule, finding the categories reasonable and the statute general in application. The supermajority provision was severed, leaving the substantive protections in subsection 10-1-165(A) fully in force but changeable by a simple majority.7Caselaw Findlaw. Pinckney v. Peeler That change in voting threshold is what made the 2026 expansion politically feasible.
Monuments Removed and Contested
Several disputes between 2020 and 2025 shaped how the law is now understood and drove the push to expand it.
The John C. Calhoun statue in Charleston’s Marion Square was taken down by the city on June 24, 2020. Attorney General Alan Wilson opined that the statue was not protected because Calhoun died a decade before the Civil War and the monument did not fit any of the Act’s listed categories.12SC Daily Gazette. Proposal to Expand Heritage Act Protections Advances in SC Senate The American Heritage Association sued, and the matter ended with the statue being transferred to the private Calhoun Monument Preservation Society.13SC Daily Gazette. SC Senators Approve Expanding Monument Protections The gap exposed by the Calhoun removal was the primary catalyst for the 2026 legislation.
A 2.4-ton Robert E. Lee highway marker, originally donated by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1947, was removed by the Charleston County School District in 2021. The Attorney General said the removal violated the Heritage Act, and after years of litigation the marker was reinstalled in Marion Square in December 2025 under an easement agreement between the UDC and the militia organization that owns the square.14Charleston City Paper. Confederate Marker Materializes at Marion Square
A Christopher Columbus statue in Columbia was vandalized in 2020, removed from a city park, and transferred to the South Carolina State Museum. In North Augusta, the Thomas McKie Meriwether obelisk, which commemorates a participant in the 1876 Hamburg Massacre, was left in place but surrounded with educational panels providing historical context.12SC Daily Gazette. Proposal to Expand Heritage Act Protections Advances in SC Senate That kind of contextual addition is what the 2026 QR code and plaque ban was written to prevent.
How the 2026 Expansion Moved Through the Legislature
Senator Danny Verdin introduced Senate Bill 508 in March 2025 with 29 co-sponsors; a companion, House Bill 4260, was filed at the same time.2News From the States. Proposal to Expand Heritage Act Protections to All Public Memorials Advances in SC Senate The QR code provision drew significant debate. The Preservation Society of Charleston had been using QR codes at landmarks to link visitors to updated historical content, and the state itself had used them for exhibits marking the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution.13SC Daily Gazette. SC Senators Approve Expanding Monument Protections Supporters of the ban said the additions “hijack the original intent” of memorials; opponents called the codes a practical tool for accurate context.15WIS-TV. Lawmakers Advance Sweeping Changes to South Carolina Heritage Act
The Senate passed the bill in April 2026 and the House followed on May 7, 2026, by a 74–28 vote. A conference committee reconciled the two versions, both chambers adopted the final text on May 14, and the governor signed it as Act No. 224 on May 19.5South Carolina Legislature. S. 508
How South Carolina’s Law Compares to Other States
South Carolina is one of several Southern states with monument protection statutes that preempt local control, though the specifics differ.
Alabama’s Memorial Preservation Act of 2017 bars removing, altering, or disturbing a monument on public property that has been in place more than 40 years. The Alabama Supreme Court unanimously upheld the law in 2019 against the City of Birmingham, which had surrounded a Confederate monument in Linn Park with plywood, and imposed a $25,000 fine.16WXXV News. Confederate Monument Law Upheld by Alabama Supreme Court
Tennessee’s Heritage Protection Act of 2013 requires a waiver from a state commission to remove or rename memorials on public property. Memphis sold two parks containing Confederate monuments to a private nonprofit for $1,000 each in December 2017, putting them beyond the statute’s reach because the law applied only to public property. The Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld the move in 2019, and the legislature tightened the law in 2018 by expanding standing and making injunctions mandatory during litigation.17Tennessee Courts. Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Memphis
Virginia moved the other direction. In 2020 the legislature passed HB 1537, authorizing localities to remove, relocate, contextualize, or cover war memorials on local public property after a public hearing and a 30-day offer period for museums or historical societies.18Virginia Legislative Information System. HB 1537 Summary The Supreme Court of Virginia cleared the state to remove the Robert E. Lee equestrian statue on Richmond’s Monument Avenue in September 2021, finding 19th-century deed covenants “unenforceable as contrary to public policy.”19NPR. Virginia Supreme Court Says State Can Remove Robert E. Lee Statue
North Carolina’s statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1, protects “objects of remembrance” and requires state commission approval for changes. A $2.5 million settlement that would have transferred the toppled Silent Sam statue at UNC-Chapel Hill to the Sons of Confederate Veterans was overturned by a state judge in February 2020.20Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. North Carolina State Court Reversed $2.5 Million Settlement
What the Federal Historic Preservation Law Does Not Do
The Heritage Act is a state statute and should not be confused with the federal National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The NHPA does not prohibit the removal of any monument. Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of federally funded or licensed projects on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and to let the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation comment before proceeding.21Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. National Historic Preservation Act It applies only to federal undertakings and creates a review process, not a ban.22General Services Administration. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act If you’re trying to understand what can and cannot happen to a monument on public land in South Carolina, the state Heritage Act is the law that governs the answer.