|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
South Carolina supreme court justice John Few‘s decision to withdraw his bid for another term on the Palmetto State’s high court did more than just scramble a judicial election. Few’s decision also placed a renewed focus on a question that has never fully been answered: what happens when those who pick judges sit inside legal and political networks with enormous financial interests pending before the very courts those judges will soon join?
That question now carries unusual urgency – because the seat Few is vacating could influence the direction of some of the most financially consequential civil litigation currently pending in South Carolina, namely the state’s controversial asbestos receivership cases.
At issue is not merely abstract legal doctrine. The litigation now before the Supreme Court of South Carolina could determine whether South Carolina courts retain leverage over foreign asbestos-related entities tied to historic industrial liability, including claims involving Cape PLC — a company alleged in court filings to have supplied roughly ninety percent of the world’s amosite asbestos during key periods of industrial exposure.
***
If South Carolina’s receivership structure survives appellate scrutiny, it preserves a mechanism capable of forcing historically remote entities into litigation streams that could affect hundreds of claims and potentially hundreds of millions — if not more — in liability allocation over time.
If that structure fails, defendants currently carrying downstream exposure may lose one of the strongest jurisdictional tools available to redistribute that burden.
That is why industrial stakeholders are paying close attention.
It is also why the timing of all this is difficult to ignore: as lawmakers prepare to reopen screening for Few’s successor, two members of the South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) — John T. Lay and Peter Protopapas — remain intimately connected to legal and political circles surrounding asbestos litigation now active before the same court.
No allegation of wrongdoing is required for the optics to matter…
***
?????? Nothing to see here… just two members of the panel that PICKS JUDGES in South Carolina conspiring to preserve their asbestos racket in front of the justices they select. Want to know more about this scam? Check out our #ToxicJustice series… https://t.co/N8NickFcui pic.twitter.com/8JA45EfZGs
— FITSNews (@fitsnews) February 26, 2026
***
The Supreme Court is currently weighing issues that affect major corporate exposure, insurance allocation, receivership authority, and long-tail liability tied to decades of asbestos claims. Those decisions do not simply resolve individual lawsuits; they influence whether South Carolina remains a favorable forum for plaintiffs, insurers, and downstream defendants trying to assign responsibility to historic suppliers.
That context makes an unusual filing submitted just days before oral argument especially noteworthy.
On February 20, 2026, Cam Crawford — a registered lobbyist and president of the Forestry Association of South Carolina — sent a direct letter (.pdf) to the court supporting arguments similar to those advanced by New-Indy Containerboard in the pending asbestos appeal.
Normally, outside groups seeking to weigh in on an appellate case file what is known as an amicus curiae brief — literally a “friend of the court” filing — which requires formal permission, legal briefing, and compliance with court rules. Instead of following that conventional route, Crawford submitted a standalone letter urging the court to recognize that when companies like Cape PLC avoid participation, litigation costs shift to present-day South Carolina employers, insurers, and taxpayers. The letter specifically praised receiverships as a tool that reduces “litigation distortions” and stabilizes insurance affordability.
That is not standard appellate advocacy.
Letters of policy support from registered lobbyists — particularly in active Supreme Court litigation involving major economic consequences — are uncommon enough to invite scrutiny on their own. They invite even more scrutiny when filed in a legal environment where legislative leadership already holds substantial influence over judicial selection.
***
RELATED | ASBESTOS DOCKET ON TRIAL
***
That broader political context matters because Murrell Smith — the powerful speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives, whose chamber plays a central role in electing judges under the state’s legislative selection system — is a member of a law firm with substantial involvement in asbestos litigation. In South Carolina, judicial candidates must first clear the legislatively controlled screening process before facing a vote of the full General Assembly, giving House leadership unusual influence over who ultimately reaches the bench.
The same political ecosystem that helps shape the Supreme Court is operating around litigation where enormous liability exposure remains in play.
That is exactly the institutional danger Federalist No. 78 warned against.
Alexander Hamilton argued that courts possess neither force nor will, only judgment — and that judgment survives only when judges remain insulated from dependency on those whose fortunes may later rise or fall before them.
South Carolina’s system moves in the opposite direction.
Judges must periodically survive legislative reelection. Political actors count votes. Candidates withdraw when support collapses. And commission members tied to legal power centers help determine which candidates advances. Meanwhile, cases involving massive financial consequences remain active before the court.
Justice Few’s withdrawal did not create that structure – it simply made it impossible to ignore in this context.
Because when a Supreme Court seat opens while asbestos litigation worth enormous downstream economic consequences remains unresolved, judicial independence is no longer an abstract constitutional theory. It becomes a question not simply of who fills the seat, but whether the public can trust a system in which the same political structure influencing judicial elections is intertwined with cases carrying enormous legal and financial consequences.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
