“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Disability Rights South Carolina (DRSC) and two other groups sued the state, seeking injunctive relief to remedy deplorable conditions for mentally ill juveniles in facilities of the state’s Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
What happened in this case?
DRSC and two other groups filed suit against South Carolina officials, contending that the conditions in DJJ facilities are “overcrowded, understaffed, and poorly maintained” and violate statutory and constitutional standards. They maintained that “youth detained in these facilities are regularly subjected to violence, isolation, and inhumane living conditions” and are denied “adequate rehabilitation, education, and medical services.” They sought injunctive relief, including significant institutional reform.
A district court dismissed the case, finding that none of the plaintiffs had standing to sue. A 2-1 panel of the Fourth Circuit, including Trump judge Allison Rushing and Reagan nominee J. Harvie Wilkinson, agreed and affirmed the dismissal of the case in January 2026 in South Carolina State Conf of the NAACP v South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. Obama nominee James Wynn strongly dissented.
How did Trump judge Rushing and Reagan judge Wilkinson rule?
Judge Wilkinson wrote a 2-1 opinion, which Judge Rushing joined, that essentially agreed with the lower court that none of the organizational plaintiffs had standing to sue. The “juveniles detained by DJJ” would be proper plaintiffs, they maintained, not the three organizations
What did Judge Wynn say in dissent?
Judge Wynn maintained that the majority’s ruling violated past precedent and federal statute, especially with respect to DRSC. He pointed out that Congress had specifically granted protection and advocacy systems like DRSC the authority to “pursue administrative, legal and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care” from a state and may not be able to advocate on their own behalf. The majority opinion, Wynn explained, “disables” an “enforcement mechanism” that was specifically “created” by Congress to “protect a uniquely vulnerable population”. He noted that Supreme Court decisions make clear that such organizations can file suit on behalf of their members.
Why is the result harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Rushing obviously harms the rights and interests of mentally ill juveniles in South Carolina and groups like DRSC that seek to protect them. It also sets a precedent that may harm the rights of mentally ill people and protecction and advocacy systems in other states, particularly in the Fourth Circuit, which also includes Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina. The ruling also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.