South Carolina ranks sixth in 2026 Federalism Scorecard

The State Policy Network’s Center for Practical Federalism recently published its 2026 Federalism Scorecard, ranking states based on their ability to protect state decision-making from federal agency overreach. South Carolina ranked sixth nationally, down one spot from fifth in 2025, two spots from fourth in 2024 and three spots from third in 2023.

Federalism, broadly speaking, is the division of power between the federal government and the states. The concept is central to the American system of government, with the Constitution establishing distinct roles and responsibilities for each level of government. When states allow federal agencies to commandeer state policy and decision-making, that balance is weakened.

The stated purpose of the Federalism Scorecard is not to identify the best state in which to live. Instead, it evaluates the policies and safeguards states have in place to protect their authority and limit federal agency influence so states across the country can remain distinctly themselves.

The Center for Practical Federalism evaluates a range of criteria to determine a state’s vulnerability to federal influence. The criteria are divided into internal and external categories. Internal measures focus on rules governing state executive agencies, while external measures examine the ability of federal agencies to influence state decision-making through grants, regulations and other mechanisms.

The scorecard places state policy into three categories: stronger than average, vulnerable and unprotected against agency influence.

Internal factors

South Carolina received the following ratings on internal factors:

Oversight committees: Vulnerable
Judicial non-deference: Unprotected against agency influence
State agency lobbying restrictions: Unprotected against agency influence
Legislative regulatory review: Vulnerable
Independent regulatory review: Unprotected against agency influence
Injunctive relief for citizens: Unprotected against agency influence
Legislative subpoena power: Stronger than average

External factors

South Carolina received the following ratings on external factors:

Legislative oversight of federal grants: Vulnerable
Legislative intervention on federal grants: Stronger than average
Elected executives overseeing federal grants: Stronger than average
Exemptions from federal grant oversight: Unprotected against agency influence
Contingency plans for loss of federal funds: Unprotected against agency influence
Costs of grants accounted for in the event of federal funding loss: Stronger than average
Federal grant transparency and implementation: Unprotected against agency influence
Guidance transparency: Unprotected against agency influence
Oversight of Clean Air Act state implementation plans: Unprotected against agency influence
Oversight of Medicaid state plans: Unprotected against agency influence
Magnitude of federal lobbying by state agencies: Vulnerable
State revenue from federal sources: Vulnerable

Protecting states' rights

The scorecard identifies several areas where the state could strengthen its protections, particularly in legislative oversight of state agencies, comprehensive regulatory review, federal grants and transparency. A strong ranking is worth recognizing but should also serve as a benchmark for further reform.

"South Carolina's sixth-place score in our 2026 Federalism Scorecard shows that South Carolina has taken important steps to protect themselves from federal overreach." Said Steven Johnson, a fellow at the Center for Practical Federalism.

He added "South Carolina's policies that allow for legislative intervention on federal grants as well as requiring elected officials in the executive branch to authorize acceptance of federal funds, ensures that unelected bureaucrats cannot bind South Carolina to federal strings that are not in the best interest of South Carolinians."

South Carolina’s sixth-place ranking is a positive indication that the state has stronger federalism protections than most states. But the ranking should not obscure the areas where South Carolina remains vulnerable to federal influence, and the fact that other states have surpassed in the past three years.

While South Carolina has stagnated recently in its efforts to protect against agency overreach, other states, such as Tennessee and Idaho, have made significant progress in recent years. South Carolina must work to keep pace with these states.

South Carolina is better than most, but there is still work to do. If the state wants to reclaim a spot among the nation’s top three, lawmakers should focus on strengthening the areas where the scorecard identifies South Carolina as vulnerable or unprotected from agency influence.

This report may be republished in whole or in part, provided that proper credit is given to the author(s) and the South Carolina Policy Council.