State of Missouri, et al. Missouri Cases

Sean Soendker Nicholson sued the State of Missouri, challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 22, alleging violations of the original purpose, single subject, and clear title provisions of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court found SB 22 constitutional regarding these procedural limitations but unconstitutional on equal protection grounds for one section, which it severed. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that SB 22 violated the original purpose requirement because an amendment granting the attorney general new appeal powers was not germane to the bill's original purpose concerning ballot summaries. The Court further found the offending provision could not be severed, thus invalidating SB 22 in its entirety.

The State of Missouri appealed the circuit court's issuance of a preliminary injunction, which partially enjoined certain abortion-related state statutes and regulations at the request of Planned Parenthood. The Missouri Supreme Court determined it lacked exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court held that an appeal from a preliminary injunction, where the circuit court has not yet ruled on the constitutional validity of the challenged statutes, does not invoke its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the case was transferred to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

St. Louis County and its County Executive appealed a circuit court judgment declaring that the Governor has exclusive authority to fill an imminent vacancy in the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. The circuit court had also issued a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction against the County. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because the prosecuting attorney performs essential state functions, the Governor has the constitutional and statutory authority to make the appointment, superseding the County Charter.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and other unions sued the State of Missouri, challenging Senate Bill No. 1007, which designated most state employees as at-will, and the Personnel Advisory Board's (PAB) rules implementing it. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Unions, finding SB 1007 did not mandate at-will employment and the PAB rules were unauthorized. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that SB 1007 mandates at-will employment, does not violate constitutional collective bargaining or contract clauses, and many PAB rules exceeded statutory authority by restricting bargaining over terms consistent with at-will employment. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others sought declaratory and injunctive relief to allow all Missouri voters to vote by mail without notarization during the COVID-19 pandemic. The circuit court denied their request, and the Appellants appealed. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the statutory phrase "confinement due to illness" does not include voluntarily confining oneself to avoid contracting or spreading a pathogen, and that the right to vote absentee or by mail is not a fundamental right under the Missouri Constitution.

The Public School Retirement System of the City of St. Louis appealed the circuit court's judgment on the pleadings, which found that recent legislative changes to public employee retirement eligibility did not constitute a benefit increase under Section 105.684. The circuit court also concluded that the Retirement System was not an "other political subdivision" entitled to the protections of the Hancock Amendment and that Section 169.597 only granted standing, not substantive protections. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the eligibility change was not a benefit increase and that the Retirement System lacked the power to tax, thus not qualifying for Hancock Amendment protections.

The Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other petitioners appealed the circuit court's dismissal of their petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief concerning Missouri's absentee voting statute, section 115.277, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The circuit court had dismissed all four counts for failure to state a claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Count II, which petitioners abandoned on appeal, but reversed and remanded the judgment as to Counts I, III, and IV, finding that those counts sufficiently stated claims for relief.

Priorities USA and other respondents challenged Missouri's voter identification law, section 115.427, arguing its affidavit requirement unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote. The circuit court found the affidavit requirement unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement, as well as the dissemination of misleading voter materials. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the affidavit was contradictory and misleading, and that the circuit court's injunctions were proper.

The Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others challenged the enforceability of Missouri's Voter ID Law, alleging insufficient state appropriations for its implementation. The trial court granted the State's motions for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the petition. The appellate court reversed, holding that the claims were not barred by sovereign immunity, were ripe for adjudication, and that local election authorities were not indispensable parties. The court further found that the petition adequately pleaded a claim of insufficient appropriation, thus reversing the dismissal and remanding for further proceedings.

Jack Alpert, a convicted felon whose federal firearm rights were restored, filed a declaratory judgment action against the State of Missouri, challenging the constitutionality of section 571.070, RSMo, which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. Alpert argued the statute violated his rights under the Missouri Constitution and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Alpert's pre-enforcement challenges were ripe but that section 571.070 withstands constitutional scrutiny under both state and federal law.