Missouri Roundtable for Life, Inc. v. State
396 S.W.3d 348
Mo.2013Background
- Roundtable sued to enjoin SB 7 and reverse its implementation after SB 7 was signed in 2011 and contingent on SB 8.
- SB 7 had two sections: A (science/innovation) and B (contingent on SB 8, relating to taxation).
- SB 8 (taxation) was not enacted by the General Assembly, but agencies began implementing SB 7 Section A anyway.
- Circuit court held SB 7 unconstitutional in its entirety under the Missouri Constitution's single-subject rule and denied severance.
- Missouri Supreme Court agreed SB 7 violated single subject and that Section B could not be severed under the facts.
- The case involves appellate review of a statute’s validity and severability when procedural constitutional violations are alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SB 7 violate the single subject rule? | SB 7 contains multiple subjects by tying science/innovation to taxation via Section B. | SB 7's contingency is permissible and connected to its overall subject in title and purpose. | Yes; SB 7 violates single subject rule. |
| Is Section B severable from SB 7 given procedural violation? | Section B’s contingency is essential to SB 7’s efficacy; severance would preserve the bill’s core. | Severance should be allowed if Section B is nonessential or would have passed independently. | No; severance is not justified; Court doubts SB 7 would have passed without Section B. |
| What standard governs severance for procedural vs substantive constitutional violations? | Procedural violations may be severed under existing doctrine if core provisions survive. | Procedural severance should not salvage laws enacted in violation of procedures. | Procedural severance doctrine applies; severance not warranted here. |
| Did the legislative history and text create reasonable doubt SB 7 would have passed without Section B? | History shows SB 7 did not pass without Section B; text ties to contingent effectiveness. | Cannot rely solely on legislative history; ambiguity exists as to passage without Section B. | Yes; reasonable doubt SB 7 would have passed without Section B. |
| Is Section B essential to SB 7’s efficacy? | Section B is necessary to trigger Section A’s effectiveness; thus essential. | If Section B were not essential, it would not affect SB 7’s operative purpose. | Yes; Section B is essential to SB 7’s efficacy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammerschmidt v. Boone County, 877 S.W.2d 98 (Mo. banc 1994) (single-subject and severance principles central to procedural violations)
- Legends Bank v. State, 361 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. banc 2012) (distinguishes substantive vs procedural severance standards)
- Mo. Health Care Ass’n v. Atty. Gen. of the State of Mo., 953 S.W.2d 617 (Mo. banc 1997) (subject test focusing on title to determine bill subject)
- Akin v. Dir. of Revenue, 934 S.W.2d 295 (Mo. banc 1996) (conditioning effect on future legislation can be a single subject issue)
- Stroh Brewery Co. v. State, 954 S.W.2d 323 (Mo. banc 1997) (logrolling and procedural safeguards under single-subject rule)
- St. Louis County v. Prestige Travel, Inc., 344 S.W.3d 708 (Mo. banc 2011) (severance doctrine in procedural violations discussed)