The twin joys of swimming and teaching have always been central for Libby Souder. For years, the Columbia, SC, resident gave private swim lessons to local children in her backyard pool, which was more accessible and comfortable than public pools, especially for young children and those with disabilities.
Each year, Souder had her business license renewed by the city’s zoning administrator without issue. She typically taught for a few months leading up to summer swim season, a child or two at a time, two to three hours a day. Everything was straightforward—until it wasn’t.
The arrival of a new neighbor threw a wrench into Souder’s business, and now she is suing the city of Columbia, with the possibility that the South Carolina Supreme Court will have to weigh in.
At stake is more than just her ability to run her business; it’s a question of whether the government can regulate at the expense of individual property rights, and what that means for anyone seeking to run a business out of their home.
A home business is born
In giving swimming lessons out of her home, Souder was practicing a tradition passed down to her. “I learned to swim myself in a lady’s backyard in Columbia,” she says.
Souder got her business license in 2018, and says every year after that, the city renewed it without issue. She taught two to three hours a day, April through July, in a heated pool in her private backyard, with lush greenery and a fence she claims help absorb sound. She invested in the business accordingly—keeping her pool heated, fixing the heater when it broke, and building a second driveway so her clients wouldn’t park on the street.
As a teacher, Souder says she always tried to balance the needs of her students with what was best for the neighborhood.
“The majority of my clients are probably ages 2 to 5. I use a very positive approach; kids do better when it’s not stressful. They don’t retain anything if they’re crying,” she says. “I try to be really respectful of the neighbors. Last year I had one child who just wasn’t getting with the program, and I moved him down the street to the neighborhood pool, because he was crying and screaming and I didn’t want that next door to my neighbors.”
Souder says she never heard complaints from the city or neighbors during those years. “When I look back, I probably would have gone a different route for those eight years had I known what would happen.”
A new neighbor has his say
Everything was going swimmingly, as far as Souder was concerned. Then in 2024, a new neighbor prepared to move in next door and contacted Columbia’s Zoning Department, arguing that Souder’s business caused excessive noise and traffic. The neighbor had not yet moved in when the complaints began.
What followed was a confusing series of communications. Souder received violation notices from the city, but when she reached out to address them, the city never responded. When she sought to renew her license in 2025, she was told over the phone that it would not be renewed—and then received an email saying it had been approved, with no license attached.
“Everything was wishy-washy,” Souder says. “They didn’t give me straight answers.”
The city eventually issued a formal written interpretation in July 2025, concluding that under the city’s Unified Development Ordinance, home businesses must be conducted within a “fully enclosed, lawfully approved structure which is accessory to the residential use”—and that a fenced-in outdoor pool does not qualify.
Souder took legal action to clarify her license status and keep teaching while the matter was sorted out. The legal maneuvering culminated in a Board of Zoning Appeals hearing in September 2025, where more than 30 neighbors submitted letters of support and three spoke on her behalf.
“I’ve never seen one with this level of support,” says Robert Fellner, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which has joined Souder’s legal action as part of its Zoning Justice Project. “It really reiterated that this harm isn’t just Libby’s. It’s the community who really, really want to be able to get these life-saving swim lessons for their children.”
Only one person spoke against Souder. Despite this, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the city’s interpretation, effectively banning her business.
Not everyone has been sympathetic to Souder’s situation. At least one former client, quoted in local outlet FITSNews, called her operation “an absolute nuisance” and disputed her characterization of the business’s scale. The neighbor at the center of the dispute, who spoke to Realtor.com® and asked to remain anonymous, said the same.
“Mrs. Souder was operating a very active commercial business in a high-end residential neighborhood,” the neighbor says. “Every property owner in the City of Columbia is afforded the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property.”
Souder, for her part, disputes the characterization. She acknowledges that the volume of her business changed from year to year and that her sons helped teach on occasion, but says she never taught more than two kids at a time.
“We haven’t had a camp here in at least three years,” she says. “No one ever had an issue, no one spoke to me, no one said it was a problem.”
Pick your legal argument
Now, with the help of the Institute for Justice, Souder has filed a lawsuit against the city of Columbia. And ironically, as the fight with the city has intensified, the original conflict with her neighbor seemed to deflate.
“When he did witness swim lessons [in June of 2025], the neighbor sent a text and told us he had no problem with the lessons the way they were going on—with children who were quiet and that behaved. And then ultimately he changed his tune and decided it was his duty to help us get swim lessons back,” Souder says.
But at this point, the fight is beyond him. “Our fight is 100% with the city of Columbia,” she says.
Fellner, the IJ attorney, is helping make three distinct arguments for Souder. The first is that the city’s blanket ban on outdoor home businesses is unconstitutional as applied.
“If the government is going to deprive someone of the right to use their private property or earn an honest living, they need a good reason,” he says. “Teaching private swim lessons in a backyard pool at normal hours, not causing noise problems, not causing traffic problems—there is no good reason to shut that down.”
The second argument is equal protection. Columbia not only permits home daycares to operate outdoors, it actually requires them to have an outdoor play area for up to six children.
“It really highlights the irrationality,” Fellner says. “Six kids running around outside is fine, but you can’t have one kid in a pool.”
The third is “equitable estoppel”—the legal principle that the city cannot mislead someone into reasonably believing they’re operating lawfully, then reverse course.
“The city told Libby what she was doing was fine. She had every reason to think she was operating lawfully,” Fellner says. “And now they’re pulling the rug out from under her. That’s both unjust and unlawful.”
Realtor.com reached out to the City of Columbia’s Zoning Division and its public relations, media & marketing department for comment on the case. The city did not respond to repeated requests.
What’s next for the case
On April 2, the case cleared a key procedural hurdle, with a judge rejecting the city’s attempts to block it from moving forward. A ruling at the circuit court level could come within roughly four months. From there, either side can appeal directly to the South Carolina Supreme Court—and Fellner says if they lose, they will appeal.
“The goal is for the South Carolina Supreme Court to declare this law unconstitutional,” he says. “So not only can Libby go back to work, but similar laws can’t be passed going forward.”
For Souder, the wait couldn’t come at a worse time. Spring swim season—the stretch from April through July when her heated pool made her business uniquely valuable to families—is arriving again, and she won’t be teaching.
“It’s been very upsetting,” she says. “I just never expected for things to come to this. If the city had come to me and said, hey, this seems to be an issue, I would have been like, what’s the problem? Let’s fix it. It certainly was not insurmountable.”
