## Facts

- Stardancer Casino, Inc. operated “day cruises to nowhere” departing from and returning to South Carolina ports.
- The vessel contained gambling devices (e.g., slot machines, gaming tables, video-poker machines).
- Stardancer permitted gambling only after the vessel traveled beyond South Carolina’s three-mile territorial waters.
- Before re-entering South Carolina territorial waters and docking, Stardancer secured the gambling devices so they were unavailable.
- Stardancer sought declaratory relief to determine whether its operations violated South Carolina criminal gambling statutes and could thereby trigger federal exposure under the Johnson Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1171–1178).
- Stardancer identified multiple South Carolina statutes as potentially applicable, including provisions on gambling devices on “premises,” seizure/destruction of devices, unlawful gaming in specified places, and keeping gambling games or houses.
- A state revenue regulation interpreting “premises” under S.C. Code § 12-21-2710 excluded moving property such as boats.
- The trial court declared Stardancer’s operations did not violate the cited statutes; state officials appealed, conceding the lottery and bookmaking statutes were inapplicable.

## Issues

1. Whether Stardancer’s cruises violated South Carolina criminal gambling statutes, including S.C. Code §§ 12-21-2710, 12-21-2712, 16-19-40, 16-19-50, and 16-19-120.
2. Whether South Carolina law, as construed, statutorily prohibited the cruises in a way that could support federal sanctions under the Johnson Act.

## Decision

- The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the declaratory judgment for Stardancer.
- The court held the cited South Carolina statutes did not criminalize Stardancer’s operations as conducted (gambling only outside state territorial waters, devices secured before re-entry).
- The court found § 16-19-40 did not extend to gambling on vessels because the statute listed specific locations and did not include ships.
- The court concluded § 12-21-2710 did not apply to the moving vessel given the administrative definition of “premises” excluding boats and the absence of legislative correction.
- The court declined to extend § 16-19-50 to offshore cruise gambling absent clear legislative direction, considering statutory text and legislative history.
- Because state law did not plainly prohibit the conduct, there was no state-law predicate for treating the cruises as prohibited “cruises to nowhere” for Johnson Act purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal statutes are strictly construed; conduct is not punishable unless plainly proscribed by statute.
- Courts will not expand criminal liability by inference where statutory text does not clearly reach the conduct at issue.
- Administrative interpretations of statutory terms may receive weight, particularly where the legislature has not acted to disapprove the interpretation.
- Legislative history and subsequent legislative action (including rejection of targeted bills) may support an inference that existing statutes were not intended to criminalize specific conduct.
- Federal enforcement schemes that depend on state prohibitions (such as the Johnson Act’s “cruises to nowhere” framework) require a valid, applicable state-law ban as a predicate.

## Conclusion

The court held that South Carolina’s existing gambling statutes, strictly construed and read in light of administrative interpretation and legislative history, did not make Stardancer’s offshore day-cruise gambling illegal, and thus did not supply a state-law basis for Johnson Act consequences.


Stardancer Casino, Inc. v. Stewart, 346 S.C. 377, 556 S.E.2d 357 (S.C. 2001)