The Helping Alleviate Lawful Obstruction (HALO) Act has been one of the most closely watched pieces of public safety legislation considered by the South Carolina General Assembly. Throughout the legislative process, the bill has evolved through amendments, conference negotiations, and procedural votes, making its current status difficult to follow.

The purpose of this article is to explain what the HALO Act would do, the changes made during the legislative process, and where the legislation stands following action by the General Assembly.

The HALO Act

The Helping Alleviate Lawful Obstruction (HALO) Act is designed to provide additional protections for South Carolina’s first responders while they are performing their lawful duties during emergencies.

The legislation applies to law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, certified EMS workers, and paramedics. It also includes separate protections for certain emergency medical care providers working within hospital emergency departments.

Under the bill, a person who knowingly and willfully disregards a verbal warning and intentionally interferes with protected personnel while they are lawfully performing their duties may be subject to criminal penalties.

The legislation is intended to reduce unnecessary distractions, help de-escalate potentially dangerous situations, and allow first responders to focus on protecting lives, providing medical care, and maintaining public safety.

A New Layer of Protection for First Responders

For first responders operating in the field, the HALO Act establishes a 25-foot buffer zone under specific circumstances.

The legislation does not automatically prohibit individuals from being within 25 feet of a first responder. Instead, the buffer zone applies only after a person has received a verbal warning from someone the individual knows, or reasonably should know, is a first responder engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty.

Even after receiving that warning, a violation occurs only if the individual knowingly and willfully approaches or remains within 25 feet with the intent to impede or interfere with the first responder’s ability to perform official duties or to offer or attempt to cause physical harm under circumstances that reasonably create fear of imminent peril.

Examples of prohibited conduct include intentionally obstructing a first responder’s movement, interfering with the administration of emergency medical care, or interfering with the lawful arrest of another person.

A person convicted of violating these provisions would be guilty of a misdemeanor and could face a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to thirty days, or both.

Emergency Department Protections

In addition to protecting first responders operating in the field, the legislation also creates protections for emergency medical care providers working within hospital emergency departments.

The bill defines emergency medical care providers as registered nurses, physicians, physician assistants, medical directors, and hospital volunteers who are providing or assisting in the provision of emergency medical care within an emergency department.

Unlike the provisions applying to first responders, the legislation does not establish a fixed 25-foot buffer for hospital settings.

Instead, after receiving a verbal warning, an individual would be prohibited from approaching or remaining at a distance that does not allow the safe and unencumbered treatment of a patient, as determined by the hospital’s emergency department.

The prohibited conduct mirrors the protections provided to first responders. A violation requires knowingly and willfully disregarding the warning with the intent to interfere with emergency medical care or to offer or attempt to cause physical harm under circumstances reasonably creating fear of imminent peril.

The same misdemeanor penalties would apply upon conviction.

Conference Committee Revisions

As the HALO Act moved through the legislative process, the House and Senate passed different versions of the bill.

When this occurs, members from both chambers may be appointed to a conference committee to negotiate a compromise that resolves the differences between the two versions.

The conference committee reviewing the HALO Act reached an agreement that combined provisions from both chambers while also recognizing that the legislation now contained two different standards governing buffer zones.

One standard established a fixed 25-foot distance for first responders operating in the field. The other established a flexible “reasonable distance” standard for emergency medical care providers working inside hospital emergency departments.

Because the additional severability language was not contained in either chamber’s original version of the legislation, further legislative action became necessary before the compromise could be considered final.

Preserving the Legislation Through Severability

As part of the conference committee’s work, the conferees added a severability clause to the legislation.

Severability is a common legal provision that protects the remainder of a law if a court later determines that one portion is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.

In the case of the HALO Act, the conference committee determined that severability was appropriate because the legislation establishes two separate standards governing protected distances. One applies a fixed 25-foot buffer for first responders, while the other relies on a reasonable-distance standard for emergency medical care providers in hospital emergency departments.

If a court were ever to invalidate one portion of the legislation, the severability clause is intended to preserve any remaining provisions that continue to satisfy constitutional requirements.

Adding this language was intended to strengthen the legislation by reducing the likelihood that an issue affecting one section would invalidate the entire act.

Free Conference Proceedings

The addition of severability language required another procedural step before the legislation could advance.

Because the conference committee included language that appeared in neither the House nor Senate versions of the bill, the legislation entered what is known as Free Conference.

Free Conference allows conferees additional authority to recommend changes that extend beyond simply choosing between the House and Senate versions of a bill.

Unlike many legislative votes, adopting a Free Conference Report requires approval by a two-thirds vote of the membership in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

On June 25, 2026, the Senate granted Free Conference powers, adopted the Free Conference Report, and transmitted the legislation to the House.

Later that day, the House considered the report but did not achieve the two-thirds vote required for adoption. Because the necessary threshold was not met, the House rejected both the Free Conference powers and the Free Conference Report.

Without approval by both chambers, the conference agreement could not be adopted.

Current Legislative Status

Although the HALO Act advanced through much of the legislative process and a conference committee reached a negotiated compromise, the legislation did not receive final approval during this stage of consideration.

The Senate adopted the Free Conference Report, but the House did not obtain the required two-thirds vote necessary to approve it. As a result, the conference agreement was not adopted at that time.

The HALO Act remains under consideration, and another opportunity for the legislation to advance may arise if and when the General Assembly reconvenes to address the state budget or other pending matters.