No. 25-7647October Term 2025Petition Pending
Gina Patricia Bornemann, Petitioner v. Paul Herbert Bornemann
Gina Patricia Bornemann asks the Supreme Court to review a South Carolina appellate ruling involving her inability to obtain transcripts needed for appellate review after she was allowed to proceed without paying court fees.
Case status
- Current stage
- Petition Pending
- Latest event
- Petition pending
- Decision timing
- No decision timeline until the Court agrees to hear the case.
- What it's about
Gina Patricia Bornemann asks the Supreme Court to review a South Carolina appellate ruling involving her inability to obtain transcripts needed for appellate review after she was allowed to proceed without paying court fees. Her petition argues that dismissing or refusing to restore an appeal for that reason violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection protections.
Question presented
1. Whether a State violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when it grants a litigant leave to proceed in forma pauperis yet dismisses or refuses to reinstate an appeal solely because the litigant cannot obtain the transcripts required for appellate review-particularly where the transcript requirements exceed ordinary filing costs and were generated in a proceeding conducted without the litigant ’ s participation and without any opportunity to object. 2. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment permits a State to condition appellate review on transcript requirements that a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis cannot meet, in conflict with this Court ’ s decisions in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), andM.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). 3. Whether due process is violated when expert selection, testimony, and evidentiary development in a civil proceeding are controlled by one party, resulting in transcript burdens and outcomes that the opposing litigant cannot meaningfully challenge on appeal.
- Case path
Court of Appeals of South Carolina / Petition pending
- Area
Petition for review pending
Briefing
What it's about
Gina Patricia Bornemann asks the Supreme Court to review a South Carolina appellate case after she could not obtain transcripts needed for an appeal, despite being allowed to proceed without paying court fees. She argues that denying or refusing to restore her appeal for that reason violates due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Argument
The case has not been scheduled for oral argument. Bornemann argues that transcript requirements barred meaningful appellate review after she was allowed to proceed without paying court fees.
Impact
The case could affect people who are permitted to proceed without court fees but cannot afford costly transcripts required to challenge a civil case on appeal. For example, a person who did not participate in a hearing may be unable to contest what happened there without a transcript.
What is at stake in Bornemann v. Bornemann?
The case asks whether a state may block appellate review because a person allowed to proceed without fees cannot obtain required transcripts.
Who could be affected by the transcript dispute?
Civil litigants who cannot afford required transcripts could be affected, especially when they need those records to challenge a lower-court proceeding.
What happens next in Bornemann v. Bornemann?
The Supreme Court may schedule oral argument or take another scheduling step. No decision timing has been set.
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Sep 3, 2026
- Method
- Methodology