Bone v. Director of Revenue
404 S.W.3d 883
Mo.2013Background
- Driver arrested for DWI with BAC .096; license suspension triggered and CDL disqualified after alcohol-related enforcement contact.
- Driver challenged numerous statutes, including 302.700 and 302.755.1, via petition for trial de novo.
- Trial court ruled 302.500 and 302.700 unconstitutional under NFIB and reinstated driving privileges, including CDL.
- DOR appealed the trial court’s ruling; Missouri Supreme Court granted review of constitutional validity.
- Court held NFIB does not render section 302.700 unconstitutional; NFIB is inapplicable to Spending Clause challenges to state law.
- Court denied Driver’s other due process and equal protection arguments; judgment reversed and sections retained as valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NFIB requires invalidating 302.700 | Bone argues NFIB coerces states to change laws to receive funds | DOR contends NFIB does not reach state-law validity under Spending Clause | NFIB inapplicable; 302.700 not invalidated |
| Whether Driver timely raised NFIB argument | Bone raised NFIB at August 2012 hearing | DOR contends no timely raising | Argument treated as timely amended pleading by implied consent |
| Due process and equal protection challenges | Sections 302.505–302.545, 302.700, 302.755 violate due process/equal protection | No merit shown in trial record | Claims denied; statutes upheld |
| Lineal relationship of NFIB to state spending power | NFIB bars state measures tied to federal funding | NFIB concerns federal spending power; not applicable to state law validity | NFIB does not control; inapplicable to Spending Clause challenge to Missouri statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (U.S. 2012) (holding Medicaid expansion coercive under Spending Clause)
- Smith v. City of St. Louis, 395 S.W.3d 20 (Mo. banc 2013) (implied-consent doctrine; issues raised by implied consent treated as pleadings)
- Kackley v. Burtrum, 947 S.W.2d 461 (Mo. App. 1997) (issues raised by implied consent determined as if part of pleadings)