Missouri Municipal League, City of Springfield, and Richard Sheets v. State of Missouri
489 S.W.3d 765
Mo.2016Background
- In 2013 the General Assembly passed H.B. 331 and H.B. 345 changing local-government control over telecom permitting and rights-of-way; a circuit court later ruled those bills procedurally invalid and the State appealed.
- While that appeal was pending, the legislature in early 2014 enacted S.B. 649 and S.B. 650, which repealed and reenacted many of the same sections and printed the text of H.B. 331/H.B. 345 as the then-existing law with proposed changes noted.
- Two days before the new bills became effective (and two days before this Court dismissed the prior appeal), the Missouri Municipal League, the City of Springfield, and Richard Sheets sued, challenging S.B. 649 and S.B. 650 under the Missouri Constitution.
- Plaintiffs asserted four constitutional theories: (1) the bills were retrospective in operation (art. I, § 13); (2) they were impermissible special laws (art. III, § 40(28)); (3) they imposed unfunded mandates (art. X, § 21); and (4) they violated legislative-enactment requirements (art. III, § 28) by effectively reviving invalidated acts.
- The State moved to dismiss the substantive claims and sought judgment on the pleadings for the enactment claim; the circuit court sustained the State’s motions and entered judgment for the State. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retrospective-law standing (art. I, § 13) | City/MML: they are directly and adversely affected and thus may sue under the retrospective-law prohibition | State: the retrospective-law clause protects citizens, not the State or political subdivisions; legislature may impair state/subdivision rights | Court: Dismissed—municipalities lack a recognized claim under art. I, § 13 because the prohibition was intended to protect citizens; legislature may waive impair rights of political subdivisions |
| Special-law prohibition (art. III, § 40(28)) | Plaintiffs: § 67.1842.1(6) as enacted singles out a class and grants special privileges | State: the statute applies to an open-ended class (public utilities with legal ROW access) and is facially general | Court: Dismissed—petition made only conclusory allegations; statute is not facially a closed class and plaintiffs failed to plead supporting facts |
| Unfunded-mandate standing (art. X, § 21) | Plaintiffs/Sheets: Sheets (a Cole County taxpayer) has taxpayer standing to enforce art. X, § 21 | State: Sheets did not allege he is a taxpayer of the political subdivisions actually affected (Springfield/member cities) | Court: Dismissed—Sheets lacked standing because he did not allege taxpayer status in the affected subdivisions |
| Enactment/procedure (art. III, § 28) | Plaintiffs: S.B. 649/650 improperly revived invalid H.B. 331/H.B. 345 by presenting their text as existing law, violating reenactment rules | State: because H.B. 331/345’s validity was still pending on appeal, they were not dead acts requiring revival; S.B. 649/650 did not clearly and undoubtedly violate art. III, § 28 | Court: Judgment for State—no clear and undoubted constitutional violation; printing H.B. text as then-existing law was permissible while appeal was pending |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. State, 352 S.W.3d 357 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard of review for motions to dismiss)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Am. Tobacco Co., 34 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. banc 2000) (motion for judgment on the pleadings standard)
- Ste. Genevieve Sch. Dist. R-II v. Bd. of Aldermen of City of Ste. Genevieve, 66 S.W.3d 6 (Mo. banc 2002) (standing for declaratory judgment requires direct and adverse effect)
- Planned Indus. Expansion Auth. of City of St. Louis v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 612 S.W.2d 772 (Mo. banc 1981) (municipal standing in certain statutory contexts)
- Savannah R-III Sch. Dist. v. Pub. Sch. Ret. Sys. of Mo., 950 S.W.2d 854 (Mo. banc 1997) (retrospective-law protection aimed at citizens, allowing legislature to waive state/subdivision rights)
- Alderson v. State, 273 S.W.3d 533 (Mo. banc 2009) (special-law analysis; open-ended characteristics preserve facial constitutionality)
- Transit Cas. Co. ex rel. Pulitzer Publ’g Co. v. Transit Cas. Co. ex rel. Intervening Emps., 43 S.W.3d 293 (Mo. banc 2001) (pleading must include facts, not mere conclusions)
- Mo. Roundtable for Life, Inc. v. State, 396 S.W.3d 348 (Mo. banc 2013) (constitutional procedural limits invalidate legislation only if violation is clear and undoubted)
- C.C. Dillon Co. v. City of Eureka, 12 S.W.3d 322 (Mo. banc 2000) (purpose of reenactment requirement: avoid confusion from fragmented statutory amendments)