A South Carolina man currently embroiled in an ongoing court battle exploded at environmental officials during arguments, insisting that the man-made seawall outside his oceanfront mansion is entirely legal.

Rom Reddy, of Isle of Palms, is locked in a heated court battle over a $289,000 fine for an unauthorized seawall he built behind his beachfront property, with The South Carolina of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) arguing it violates coastal protection laws, The State reported.

On Tuesday, sporting a snazzy black suit and distinguished glasses, Reddy represented himself in court – a rare move for an administrative law case.

Reddy argued that he is nothing short of a law-abiding citizen, insisting he was unfairly targeted by the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services, which he claims is using regulation and enforcement to take his property.

‘I understand a little bit more than the unelected bureaucrats,’ Reddy said in court, according to The State.

‘This is an unusual situation where we sit here with the citizens, my beautiful wife and myself… against the police power to the state and a taxpayer funded charity.’

In February, the DHEC filed a temporary restraining order and petition for injunctive relief – a court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing a specific action – against Reddy, WCBD News reported.

The department subsequently issued cease-and-desist orders to Reddy, arguing that the seawall is located in a critical area.

A South Carolina man currently embroiled in an ongoing court battle exploded at environmental officials during arguments, insisting that the man-made seawall outside his oceanfront mansion is entirely legal

Rom Reddy (pictured in court), of Isle of Palms, is locked in a heated court battle over a $289,000 fine for an unauthorized seawall he built behind his beachfront property, with The South Carolina of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) arguing it violates coastal protection laws

Reddy argued that he is nothing short of a law-abiding citizen, insisting he was unfairly targeted by the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services, which he claims is using regulation and enforcement to take his property

Reddy, a steadfast supporter of President Donald Trump, claimed that either way, he was being treated unfairly – specifically in articles written by ‘the fake news’

Now, with the court battle intensifying, the Reddy case has drawn in close scrutiny, as it could challenge state efforts to enforce beach protection laws established decades ago – all with the purpose of combating the threat of sea level rise.

Rising sea levels, driven by climate change, have become a growing issue along South Carolina’s coast, with Reddy’s case sparking urgent debates over the impact of seawalls.

South Carolina ultimately banned seawalls along the beach 36 years ago, citing their overall role in worsening erosion and obstructing public access to the shoreline.

Reddy, however, argues that the state’s actions infringe upon his property rights.

He claimed that the state law itself allowed him to develop construction on that particular section of the beach. Further, he argued that if he is denied the use of his land due to the state’s restrictions, he should be compensated for that loss.

At times, the anti-government regulation advocate waved his arms and pointed at the court, emphasizing his point with dramatic flare.

‘What they are doing is a descent into a total tyranny,’ Reddy claimed during court.

However, lawyers for the Department of Environmental Services doubled down, asserting that the issue is clear as day: Reddy built a seawall on his property, a practice that has been illegal in South Carolina for over three decades.

Additionally, the state agency said that Reddy ignored repeated warnings not to build on the beach, arguing that judicial intervention is necessary to stop his unauthorized actions in the critical area.

Reddy was accused of secretly piling clay, rocks and concrete on the beach outside his luxury home – then backing it all up with a seawall, despite a decades-old ban

Reddy, who defended himself in court, claimed that the state law itself allowed him to develop construction on that particular section of the beach. Further, he argued that if he is denied the use of his land due to the state’s restrictions, he should be compensated for that loss

In February, the DHEC filed a temporary restraining order and petition for injunctive relief – a court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing a specific action – against Reddy

South Carolina ultimately banned seawalls along the beach 36 years ago, citing their overall role in worsening erosion and obstructing public access to the shoreline. Reddy, however, argues that the state’s actions infringe upon his property rights

‘We’re here today about a total disregard of the law,’ Environmental Services lawyer Sallie Phelan said in her opening remarks, according to The State.

‘We are here about two seawalls the Reddy’s constructed on the beach at Isle of Palms to protect their yard, despite the department’s repeated warning that it was not authorized and the department believed it to be a violation of the South Carolina coastal tidelands and wetlands law.’

Battling ocean waves and state officials, Phelan accused Reddy of secretly piling clay, rocks and concrete on the beach outside his luxury home – then backing it all up with a seawall, despite a decades-old ban.

Photos shown in court revealed the ocean breaching his property, flooding turf-covered yards that ultimately smashed through an aging barrier.

Simply put, state regulators say the wall breaks the law. Reddy says the state has no authority over that decision.

At the very heart of the drama lies this question: Where does South Carolina’s beachfront control really end?

While in court, Reddy asked detailed questions regarding the beach protection law as he argued that a recent change in those laws made the work he constructed at his home entirely legal.

Last month, a judge agreed that the state had control over the entire beach during a preliminary ruling, according to The State. In this case, the state argued a similar point – the law gives them authority to protect all of the sandy beach, not just the areas with building restriction lines.

The state agency said that Reddy ignored repeated warnings not to build on the beach, arguing that judicial intervention is necessary to stop his unauthorized actions in the critical area

Last month, a judge agreed that the state had control over the entire beach during a preliminary ruling, according to The State. In this case, the state argued a similar point – the law gives them authority to protect all of the sandy beach, not just the areas with building restriction lines

Lawyers for the Department of Environmental Services doubled down, asserting that the issue is clear as day: Reddy built a seawall on his property, a practice that has been illegal in South Carolina for over three decades

The judge isn’t expected to decide whether Reddy must cough up the $289,000 fine – or rip out his controversial seawall – until the court battle wraps up

Reddy, a steadfast supporter of President Donald Trump, claimed that either way, he was being treated unfairly – specifically in articles written by ‘the fake news’.

The multimillionaire media mogul has since been vocal on X, expressing his frustrations with what he calls government ‘tyranny’.

Earlier this week, Reddy announced on his platform that he was prepared to take on the fight.

‘The unelected agency state is trying to apply a new interpretation of the regulation on property rights that would give them unlimited property rights that can vary by homeowner, depending on their judgement,’ he wrote on X, referencing the SC Department of Environmental Services’ coastal bureau.

In another post, Reddy wrote: ‘we kneel to God, not government’.

‘We’re going to take back what belongs to us – the money and the power,’ said another.

The court proceedings are expected to last throughout the week.

The judge isn’t expected to decide whether Reddy must cough up the $289,000 fine – or rip out his controversial seawall – until the court battle wraps up.