## Facts

- Jane Doe cohabited with her same-sex fiancée for about five years and later alleged serious physical abuse, stalking, harassment, and threats.
- Doe sought a civil order of protection in South Carolina family court under the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act.
- The family court denied relief solely because the Act defined “household member” to include only “a male and female who are cohabiting or formerly have cohabited,” excluding same-sex partners.
- Instead of appealing the family court order, Doe filed an original-jurisdiction action in the South Carolina Supreme Court against the State seeking declaratory relief.
- Doe challenged the gender-specific “male and female” language in both the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act (S.C. Code § 20-4-20(b)) and the criminal domestic violence definition of “household member” (S.C. Code § 16-25-10(3)) under the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory limitation of “household member” to “a male and female who are cohabiting or formerly have cohabited” violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by excluding similarly situated same-sex cohabitants.
2. If unconstitutional, whether the gendered language can be severed so the remaining statutory scheme continues to operate and applies equally to same-sex cohabitants.

## Decision

- The South Carolina Supreme Court, exercising original jurisdiction, granted declaratory judgment relief.
- The Court held the exclusion of unmarried, cohabiting or formerly cohabiting same-sex couples from the definition of “household member” violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Court ruled the unconstitutional words “a male and female” in S.C. Code §§ 20-4-20(b) and 16-25-10(3) were severable.
- After severance, the statutes extend domestic-violence protections to unmarried cohabitants regardless of whether the relationship is same-sex or opposite-sex.

## Legal Principles

- Equal Protection forbids statutory classifications that deny legal protections to a group that is similarly situated to those covered, absent a constitutionally sufficient justification.
- A statute may be invalid in part while remaining effective in all other respects; courts may sever unconstitutional language when the remainder can function consistently with legislative purpose.
- Where severance preserves the statute’s core operation and purpose—here, protecting victims of domestic violence—courts may remove the unconstitutional limitation rather than strike the statutory scheme.

## Conclusion

The South Carolina Supreme Court declared unconstitutional and severed the “male and female” limitation from South Carolina’s civil and criminal domestic-violence definitions of “household member,” requiring equal treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants for purposes of protective orders and related domestic-violence protections.


Doe v. State, 808 S.E.2d 807 (S.C. 2017)