518 S.W.3d 183
Mo.2017Background
- In 2015 the Missouri General Assembly enacted SB 5, moving and amending the "Macks Creek" restrictions on municipal revenue from fines, lowering the cap from 30% to 20% and adding reporting, certification, and accreditation requirements; it also contained an exception reducing the cap to 12.5% for any county with a charter form and more than 950,000 inhabitants and municipalities within it (i.e., St. Louis County).
- Twelve St. Louis County municipalities and two taxpayers sued the State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting SB 5 violated (inter alia) the Missouri Constitution’s prohibition on special laws (art. III, §40(30)), the Hancock Amendment’s unfunded-mandate provisions (art. X, §§16 & 21), separation of powers (art. II, §1), and the Court‑rule amendment limitation (art. V, §5).
- At trial Plaintiffs offered limited evidence (witness testimony and an accountant affidavit); the State offered no evidence attempting to justify the special-treatment classifications.
- The trial court held parts of SB 5 (section 67.287 in full and the 12.5% exception in §479.359.2) were unconstitutional special laws and that some reporting/certification requirements were unconstitutional unfunded mandates; it permanently enjoined enforcement; other claims were dismissed.
- The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it held the targeted provisions were special laws (State failed to show substantial justification) and severed the 12.5% exception (leaving a uniform 20% cap); it reversed the Hancock‑Amendment holdings as not ripe and affirmed dismissal of the separation‑of‑powers and rule‑amendment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 5 provisions are unconstitutional special laws | SB 5’s charter + >950,000 population classification targets St. Louis County and thus is a special law | Classification is population‑based and open‑ended; not a special law | Held special law: Jefferson County three‑prong test satisfied; State offered no substantial justification, so provisions invalid and enjoined |
| Whether SB 5 imposed unconstitutional unfunded mandates (Hancock Amendment) | Requirements (police accreditation; certified addendum) impose new costs without state funding | Costs are speculative or de minimis; Legislature has time to appropriate funds | Not ripe: reversed. Accreditation mandate deferred until 2021; addendum costs de minimis, so Hancock claims dismissed |
| Whether SB 5 violates separation of powers by giving revenue director supervisory power over municipal courts | Director’s notices and enforcement interfere with judicial supervision of municipal courts | Director’s duties are ministerial (notice to presiding judge); presiding judge retains authority to order certification | Dismissed: no separation‑of‑powers violation (director’s role ministerial) |
| Whether SB 5 unlawfully amends Supreme Court rules / limits municipal retention of fines | SB 5 implicitly amends Rule 37 and unconstitutionally limits municipal right to retain fines | Statute adds procedural deadlines that do not conflict with existing rules and statutes govern retention amounts | Dismissed: statute does not amend Rule 37 and does not violate art. V §27; retention limits are statutory and permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- City of DeSoto v. Nixon, 476 S.W.3d 282 (Mo. banc 2016) (explains analyzing combined effect of multiple criteria when assessing whether ostensibly open classifications are in practice special)
- Jefferson Cnty. Fire Prot. Dists. Ass'n v. Blunt, 205 S.W.3d 866 (Mo. banc 2006) (articulates three‑prong test when a population classification effectively singles out one subdivision)
- O’Reilly v. City of Hazelwood, 850 S.W.2d 96 (Mo. banc 1993) (requires party defending a presumed special law to show substantial justification)
- Board of Educ. of City of St. Louis v. Missouri State Bd. of Educ., 271 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. banc 2008) (upheld special law where State presented substantial justification addressing unique historical/complex problems)
- City of Sullivan v. Sites, 329 S.W.3d 691 (Mo. banc 2010) (upheld special treatment where locality had unique factual justification)
- Breitenfeld v. Sch. Dist. of Clayton, 399 S.W.3d 816 (Mo. banc 2013) (sets two‑prong test for Hancock Amendment unfunded‑mandate claims)
- Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844 (Mo. banc 2004) (Hancock claims are not ripe without specific proof of new duties and increased expenses)
- Dodson v. Ferrara, 491 S.W.3d 542 (Mo. banc 2016) (severance doctrine: courts may sever invalid portions if remaining statute is complete and legislature likely would have enacted it separately)
- Trout v. State, 231 S.W.3d 140 (Mo. banc 2007) (discusses prospective vs. retrospective application of constitutional rulings)
- State ex rel. Fire Dist. of Lemay v. Smith, 184 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. banc 1945) (population‑based classifications historically treated as open‑ended and presumptively general)