Swim Instructor Sues Columbia, SC, After City Changed Its Tune and Banned Her Backyard Business

COLUMBIA, S.C.—Lifelong swim instructor Libby Souder has partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to challenge the city of Columbia’s ban on backyard swim lessons, filing a lawsuit to defend her constitutional right to earn a living and use her property productively.

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 2024, that changed. After a prospective neighbor raised concerns, the city’s Board of Zoning Appeals reinterpreted its rules. It determined that the requirement for home businesses to be “fully enclosed” meant indoors, disqualifying Libby’s fenced-in pool. That decision forced Libby to halt her lessons and now threatens the future of her small business. Meanwhile, other South Carolina cities such as Mount Pleasant have embraced backyard swim lessons without restrictions.

“Columbia’s ban on backyard swim lessons is a disservice, not only to me, but to children in our area,” said Libby. “Eliminating all backyard swim lessons decreases availability and limits access to essential water safety instruction for children. The CDC states that drowning is the leading cause of accidental death in children under age four.

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.

“Libby simply wants to be able to earn an honest living by doing what she loves—teaching students how to swim,” said IJ Attorney Robert Fellner. “Columbia’s ban serves no legitimate purpose and violates Libby’s constitutionally protected rights to earn an honest living and use her own property.”

The lawsuit gives three reasons why it is illegal and unconstitutional to ban Libby’s business. First, zoning laws are supposed to prevent genuine nuisances. Without evidence that the business harms anyone, the government should not be able to take away someone’s livelihood. Second, the city’s rules are inconsistent. Home daycares are allowed to operate outside with up to six children. Finally, the city approved Libby’s license and renewed it six times. People should be able to rely on the government’s word.

“This case is about more than just Libby’s business. Across the country, many cities have zoning provisions arbitrarily banning outdoor home businesses,” said IJ Senior Attorney Renée Flaherty. “If a home business isn’t disrupting the neighborhood, then it should be allowed to continue.”

Through its Zoning Justice Project, the Institute for Justice challenges laws that prevent people from using their property in peaceful, traditional, and productive ways. The project includes defending home-based businesses from unfair zoning restrictions and is defending a home recording studio in Tennessee, a family-run animal sanctuary in North Carolina, and a home auto shop in Pennsylvania.