Marie Boyd, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, is married to Jaime Harrison and they have two sons together. Harrison is the former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party and made national headlines when he challenged Republican Lindsey Graham for his U.S. Senate seat in 2020. Graham won the election with about 54% of the vote.
It’s unclear what Boyd thinks about her husband’s increased national profile. She rarely posts on Twitter and her Instagram profile is private. Articles she has published are focused on her legal research.
Here’s what you need to know about Harrison’s wife:
1. Marie Carla Boyd Has Been Teaching at the University of South Carolina School of Law Since 2012
Marie Carla Boyd is a college professor in Columbia, South Carolina, where she and husband Jaime Harrison own a home. She began teaching at the University of South Carolina School of Law as a visiting assistant professor in May 2012.
Boyd accepted a permanent professor position in January of 2014. According to her bio on the school website, Boyd teaches Torts, Administrative Law, Food and Drug Law, and Food Law and Policy. She was promoted from assistant professor to associate professor in January 2020.
2. Boyd Studied Chemistry at Harvard & Earned Her Law Degree From Yale
Marie Carla Boyd, like her husband Jaime Harrison, is a graduate of Yale University. She earned her law degree from Yale Law School in 2007.
Boyd was an editor for the “Yale Law Journal” and the “Yale Law and Policy Review” during her time in New Haven. She was also part of the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, the Black Law Students Association, and served as community co-chair of the American Constitution Society, according to her bio shared on the University of South Carolina website.
Boyd attended Harvard for her undergraduate education. She majored in chemistry and graduated with honors in 2003.
3. Marie Boyd Worked For an International Law Firm in Washington, D.C. After Graduating From Yale Law School
Marie Boyd went into the private sector after earning her law degree. She worked for five years at the law firm Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C.
According to her bio on the University of South Carolina website, Boyd “advised companies on the federal and state regulation of drugs, biologics, medical devices, foods, and dietary supplements” during her time with the firm. Boyd was also involved in representing residents of Washington, D.C. on civil cases including “family matters to landlord-tenant disputes.”
4. Boyd Wrote That Restaurant Chains Should be Required to Include Allergy Labels On Menus in Research Published in the Oregon Law Review
Marie Boyd has had her work published in several prominent law journals. In 2018, her work on allergy labeling at restaurants was published in the Oregon Law Review, titled “Serving Up Allergy Labeling: Mitigating Food Allergen Risks in Restaurants.”
The summary, published by the Social Science Research Network, explains that packaged foods are required by federal law to have labels identifying “major food allergens.” But the same standard does not apply to restaurant menus.
Boyd wrote that “existing food safety requirements for restaurants are inadequate to prevent allergen cross-contact.” She discusses how menu labeling practices could be changed to better protect customers. Boyd also argues that restaurants should “be required to employ science-based practices to prevent allergen cross-contact and ensure their workers are trained on food allergen management” and that federal law should be amended to require these changes. You can read the full publication here.
5. Marie Boyd Advocated For Greater Regulation of the Cosmetics Industry For Health Reasons in Research Published in the Yale Journal of Law & Feminism
Marie Carla Boyd’s legal research is not limited to just food. Her focus on food and drug law extends to customer products. She pointed out in research published by the “Yale Journal of Law & Feminism” that the cosmetics industry falls under the umbrella of the Food and Drug Administration. She argues that regulation of the makeup industry “lagged behind” other food products “because cosmetics are a gendered product.”
Boyd references data indicating that 86 percent of women in the United States use some form of makeup on a daily basis. She argues that this widespread use necessitates greater federal regulation in order to protect the health and safety of the people that use the products. Boyd writes in part, “Women may be disproportionately impacted due to differences in exposure. As noted earlier, on average, women use more cosmetics than men and are exposed to more chemicals than men through this use. Women may also be exposed to cosmetics through their work, as ‘beauty work’ is often done by women. Women also may be uniquely vulnerable to potential health harms from chemical exposure. For example, women’s bodies may ‘store chemicals cumulatively more effectively than men’s bodies, placing women at greater risk.’ Women of reproductive age and their offspring may be at particular risk from these exposures, as ‘preconception and prenatal exposure to toxic environmental agents can have a profound and lasting effect on reproductive health across the life course.'”
Boyd makes the argument that “cosmetics law and regulation have been deprioritized as a result of their longstanding and close association with femininity and women.” She also suggests there was a bias among male lawmakers who drafted the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. You can read the full publication here.