The five-member Supreme Court is expected to hear opening arguments in the case during the third week in September, a court official said Wednesday.
The court is on summer recess and does not hear cases in July and August.
After Jasper reached an exclusive development agreement with port builder SSA Marine in January, the State Ports Authority launched a declaratory judgment suit to define which governmental body has the superior right to build a port on the Savannah River. Jasper County has pursued a port project for more than 15 years and in September 2003 lost its bid to condemn the 1,863 acres, which is owned by the Georgia Department of Transportation.
"This is the best thing for all the people of South Carolina, to get this thing behind us so we can condemn the land from Georgia and put a port there," said Harry Butler, chairman of the State Ports Authority's board of directors. "I'm glad to see the court has agreed to hear this in September. Hopefully there will be a ruling shortly after that."
The State Ports Authority controls the fourth-largest cargo container system in the country through marine ports in Charleston, Georgetown and Port Royal. After filing suit against Jasper in January, the agency launched its own plan for a cargo container terminal on the site.
In the legal brief filed Monday in the Supreme Court, the State Ports Authority contends that its 1932 enabling legislation provides it exclusive powers to "promote, develop, construct, equip, maintain and operate a harbor or harbors within this state on the Savannah River."
In Jasper's final brief, filed July 14 by the Columbia-firm of Lewis, Babcock & Hawkins, the county claims the enabling legislation is neither superior nor exclusive.
Jasper County attorneys point to home rule -- a state law designed to move local government issues out of Columbia -- and the Revenue Bond Act for Utilities as statutes that allow for a county port development.
"There is nothing in the Home Rule Act about water-borne commerce, the operation of seaports and harbors, or any of the great littoral and maritime enterprises of ocean trade," according to the brief filed by State Ports attorneys
C. Mitchell Brown and Kevin A. Hall of Columbia-based Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough.
The document states that the Jasper position sets a bad precedent:
"Furthermore, this situation is capable of repetition in that other counties or political subdivisions may seek to challenge SPA's authority by attempting to condemn property for the purposes of constructing a port/marine terminal in similar circumstances."
Under the power of "super condemnation" granted to the State Ports Authority, the agency can condemn public land in addition to private land. The agency's attorneys also claim the power makes their superior right to the land obvious.
"Jasper County even recognizes this 'super power' of condemnation in its brief," the document reads. "That determination has now been made, and SPA is now exercising its condemnation powers to develop a sea port (in Jasper)."
Jasper officials say the point is moot.
"They are not actively filing condemnation on the property and they've had a decade to do it," said Andrew Fulghum, Jasper's administrator.
State Ports Authority officials accessed the Georgia-owned site on the Savannah River in January and have said that the action marks the start of their condemnation attempt, not the delivering of a formal notice of condemnation to the land owner.
It's a distinction the Supreme Court will have to settle -- something all parties are looking forward to.
"We want everyone in Jasper County to be aware that we have copies of the briefs (in Ridgeland) and would like people to see them," said Andrew Fulghum, Jasper's administrator. "When we get a final date and time from the Supreme Court, we would like all residents to attend. I know how important this is to so many people."