Article 3 Lawsuits
Watch here for a list of lawsuits funded by A3I and other cases.
Article 3 Institute Files its First Lawsuit
Today the Article 3 Institute filed it's first lawsuit in a series of strategic legal challenges designed to give teeth to the limits on legislative power the people of Missouri placed in their Constitution.
Article 3 Institute v. State of Missouri was filed in Cole County Circuit Court as a challenge to the constitutionality of Senate Bill 754, which was passed during the 2024 legislative session.
The lawsuit is what is generally called a “Clear Title Challenge,” and is based on the claim that the bill's title, “relating to public safety,” did not give sufficient notice of the bill's contents to legislators and citizens of Missouri. As the Missouri Supreme Court stated in the landmark 1994 Hammerschmidt v. Boone County case, the constitutioinal requirement that each bill contain only one subject which is clearly expressed in the bill's title “serves to defeat surprise within the legislative process.”
Noteworthy is the fact that as recently as January 30, 2024 the Missouri Supreme Court declared that the exact same bill title in SB 26 (2021), “relating to public safety,” was “too broad and amorphous to describe the subject of a pending bill with the precision necessary to provide notice of [the bill's] contents.” (City of St. Louis v. State of Missouri.)
In spite of what appears to be clear guidance by the highest court in the state, the legislature changed SB 754's original title from “relating to law enforcement animals” to the overly broad “relating to public safety” and rolled at least seven distinct bills into one.
Unlike the federal Constitution, the Missouri Constitution limits the state legislative process to one subject per bill. That subject must be “clearly expressed“ in the bill's title and the purpose of the bill can not be changed throughout the entire legislative process. (Article III, Section 21 and Section 23.)
Although Missouri Courts give a lot of deference to the legislature, they do occasionally rein lawmakers in when they circumvent the rules required for a transparent legislative process.
Just last December, in a case called Johnathan Byrd, et. al., v State of Missouri, the Missouri Supreme Court declared HB 1606 (2022) to be unconstitutional because it included a section dealing with “homelessness” that applied to non-governmental entities in a bill whose title was “relating to political subdivisions.”
The court did not simply excise the homelessness section, it struck down the entire bill. The unanimous opinion said, “there is no basis in the record for concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislature would have passed... HB 1606 without the” homelessness provision, so they must strike the entire bill.
“Striking the entire bill was a change in direction by the Court that should give pause to any legislators who are loose with the rules.”, said Ron Calzone, president of the Article 3 Institute.Dave Roland, an expert on constitutional law, is representing the plaintiffs in this case.
Media inquiries can be addressed to: Ron.Calzone@article3institute.org
###
Article 3 Institute v. State of Missouri was filed in Cole County Circuit Court as a challenge to the constitutionality of Senate Bill 754, which was passed during the 2024 legislative session.
The lawsuit is what is generally called a “Clear Title Challenge,” and is based on the claim that the bill's title, “relating to public safety,” did not give sufficient notice of the bill's contents to legislators and citizens of Missouri. As the Missouri Supreme Court stated in the landmark 1994 Hammerschmidt v. Boone County case, the constitutioinal requirement that each bill contain only one subject which is clearly expressed in the bill's title “serves to defeat surprise within the legislative process.”
Noteworthy is the fact that as recently as January 30, 2024 the Missouri Supreme Court declared that the exact same bill title in SB 26 (2021), “relating to public safety,” was “too broad and amorphous to describe the subject of a pending bill with the precision necessary to provide notice of [the bill's] contents.” (City of St. Louis v. State of Missouri.)
In spite of what appears to be clear guidance by the highest court in the state, the legislature changed SB 754's original title from “relating to law enforcement animals” to the overly broad “relating to public safety” and rolled at least seven distinct bills into one.
Unlike the federal Constitution, the Missouri Constitution limits the state legislative process to one subject per bill. That subject must be “clearly expressed“ in the bill's title and the purpose of the bill can not be changed throughout the entire legislative process. (Article III, Section 21 and Section 23.)
Although Missouri Courts give a lot of deference to the legislature, they do occasionally rein lawmakers in when they circumvent the rules required for a transparent legislative process.
Just last December, in a case called Johnathan Byrd, et. al., v State of Missouri, the Missouri Supreme Court declared HB 1606 (2022) to be unconstitutional because it included a section dealing with “homelessness” that applied to non-governmental entities in a bill whose title was “relating to political subdivisions.”
The court did not simply excise the homelessness section, it struck down the entire bill. The unanimous opinion said, “there is no basis in the record for concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislature would have passed... HB 1606 without the” homelessness provision, so they must strike the entire bill.
“Striking the entire bill was a change in direction by the Court that should give pause to any legislators who are loose with the rules.”, said Ron Calzone, president of the Article 3 Institute.Dave Roland, an expert on constitutional law, is representing the plaintiffs in this case.
Media inquiries can be addressed to: Ron.Calzone@article3institute.org
###
A3I Cases
A3I Case 0001
24AC-CC08732 - Article 3 Institute v. State of Missouri (click to go to the case page).
Cases A3I Intervened In
None at this time.
Other Cases
24AC-CC07532 - FOUR SEASONS LAKESITES PROPERT V STATE OF MO ETAL
Challenging 2024 HB 2062, which started out as relating to a moratorium on eviction proceedings, but an amendment dealing with HOA and hens was added.
25AC-CC03765 - SEAN SOENDKER NICHOLSON V STATE OF MISSOURI ET AL
Challenging 2025 SB 22, which requires the Secretary of State's involvement in re-writing summary statements for ballot measures, and allows the legislature to use up to 100 words when they write a summary statement instead of just 50 words, and allows the A.G. to appeal judicial injunctions.
25AC-CC04000 - MEGAN E GREEN V STATE OF MISSOURI ET AL
Challenging 2025 HB 495 which included the state takeover of the St. Louis police.
I’m a paragraph. Drag me to add paragraph to your block, write your own text and edit me.