Swim Instructor Appeals to South Carolina Supreme Court After Columbia Banned Her Backyard Business

COLUMBIA, S.C.—Lifelong swim instructor Libby Souder is appealing to the South Carolina Supreme Court in her fight to resume offering her backyard swim lessons to the many Columbia families who wish to receive them. Last November, Libby filed a lawsuit with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to defend her constitutional rights to earn a living and use her property productively.

“I am hopeful that the South Carolina Supreme Court will protect my right to continue teaching children to swim safely in my backyard pool,” said Libby. “I am also incredibly grateful to IJ for standing with me and helping me defend the work that I love.”

In 2018, Libby followed every rule when she applied for a home occupation business license to teach swimming lessons in her backyard pool. The city approved her license, including a zoning review, and Libby even installed a circular driveway to prevent on-street parking. For six years, she renewed her license on time without a single complaint.

But in 2025, that changed. Prompted by a prospective neighbor’s speculative concerns, a new city zoning administrator determined that the requirement for home businesses to be “fully enclosed” meant indoors, disqualifying Libby’s fenced-in pool. That decision was subsequently affirmed by the Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals, which forced Libby to halt her lessons and has left her small business on life support. Meanwhile, other South Carolina cities such as Mount Pleasant have embraced backyard swim lessons without restrictions.

Libby is an experienced instructor who has taught thousands of children and adults, including those with special needs, how to swim safely. Her home-based lessons operate only a few months each year, four days a week, for a few hours a day.

“For seven years, Columbia allowed Libby to teach children to swim in her backyard without a single complaint,” said IJ Attorney Robert Fellner. “The city cannot turn her harmless home business into an illegal one simply because a zoning official changed the meaning of an undefined word. The South Carolina Supreme Court has long held that the government cannot shut down an established, lawful business without evidence that it harms the public. We look forward to asking the Court to enforce that constitutional limit.”

The lawsuit gives four reasons why it is illegal and unconstitutional to ban Libby’s business. First, the South Carolina Constitution forbids the government from shutting down an existing business absent a factual showing of harm. Second, zoning laws are supposed to serve a legitimate public interest, but shutting down Libby’s harmless home business serves none. Third, the city’s rules are inconsistent. Residential daycares are required to operate outdoor play areas for up to six children. Finally, the city approved Libby’s license and renewed it six times. It would be unfair—and unlawful—for the city to reverse course and shut Libby down, after she spent years building her business in reliance on the city’s repeated approvals.