Missouri Supreme Court Archives

Research time is key issue in Sunshine Law case heard by the Missouri Supreme Court

February 3, 2021 By Brian Hauswirth

The Missouri Supreme Court will decide whether public governmental bodies can charge fees for searching for and researching public records. It’s the key question in a major case that was heard Wednesday morning by the Supreme Court.

Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice George Draper III takes notes in Jefferson City during remote oral arguments on October 6, 2020 (file photo courtesy of Missouri Supreme Court communications counsel Beth Riggert)

The court heard remote oral arguments in a Sunshine Law dispute between GOP Governor Mike Parson’s office and former Democratic attorney general candidate Elad Gross. There is no timeframe on when the court will issue a decision.

The case started in October 2018 when Counselor Gross, who later ran for attorney general in 2020, sent a Sunshine request to the governor’s office regarding campaign contributions. The governor’s office said the request found more than 13,000 documents and would cost about $3,600 to produce and take up to 120 business days to provide. Gross later amended his request and received about 60 pages, some of which were redacted.

Gross contends the governor’s office charged excessive fees. However, then-Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia M. Joyce dismissed Gross’ case. Judge Joyce has since retired.

Counselor Gross is asking the Supreme Court to reverse Judge Joyce’s decision. He argues the governor’s office abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily and in not waiving or reducing fees with his first request.

The governor’s office is represented by State Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office. Deputy Attorney General Jeremiah Morgan argued the case on Wednesday.

Mr. Morgan’s main argument involves the plain language of the Missouri Sunshine Law, saying it authorizes research time to be charged at the actual cost and doesn’t require a waiver of those costs. Deputy Attorney General Morgan also says closed and privileged material can be redacted from responsive documents.

Gross also questions why he was being charged $40 per hour when Missouri law calls for record production “using employees of the body that result in the lowest amount of charges for search, research and duplication time.” Morgan says the $40 per hour rate is the hourly rate of the lowest-paid attorney on Governor Parson’s staff. He also says research time is a major part of an attorney’s work.

Deputy Attorney General Morgan says the governor’s office followed the plain language of the Sunshine Law. He’s asking the Missouri Supreme Court to affirm Judge Joyce’s ruling. He also told the court that if the governor’s office is bombarded with requests like this, they would need to add more staff.

Missouri Supreme Court Judges Laura Stith and Patricia Breckenridge had several questions for Morgan about the records in question. Judge Stith asked if they’re paper, electronic or both. Deputy Attorney General Morgan told her it’s a combination of both.

COVID concerns continue to impact the Missouri Supreme Court. Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice George Draper III was the only judge in the Jefferson City courtroom this morning. The other six judges were remote. Mr. Gross and Mr. Morgan were also at remote locations, and there were no reporters in the courtroom.

Click here to read Brian’s preview of the Gross vs. Parson case, which includes links to the 48-page brief from Counselor Gross, the 37-page brief from Deputy Attorney General Morgan and the amici brief from attorneys for the “St. Louis Post-Dispatch” and “Kansas City Star.”

Missouri Supreme Court judge to retire soon

February 2, 2021 By Alisa Nelson

Missouri Supreme Court Judge Laura Denvir Stith plans to retire effective March 8. She was appointed to the high court in 2001 and served as chief justice from 2007 to 2009.

Missouri Supreme Court Judge Laura Denvir Stith

A press release today from the State Supreme Court says Stith is the second woman ever to serve on the court.

“I hope that in some small way my service over the last 20 years has continued to be a model for women lawyers and other minorities throughout Missouri that the court system of Missouri is open to all those who wish to serve, whatever their gender, race, ethnicity or type of legal practice,” Stith says.

Chief Justice George W. Draper III first announced Stith’s retirement during his 2021 State of the Judiciary address today.

“Judge Laura Denvir Stith[’s] … resume and body of work speak for themselves … she will leave a lasting legacy in the areas of ethics, gender and justice. She is a dedicated jurist. Her experience, intelligence, diligence, and wisdom will be missed. Please join me in wishing her all the best in her retirement,” says Draper.

Stith plans to do pro bono work and volunteer work after she retires. According to the press release, Stith has also told Supreme Court Chief Justice Draper she is ready and willing to continue to serve the courts as a senior judge in whatever capacity would be most useful.

Born and raised in the St. Louis suburb of Clayton, Stith graduated magna cum laude from John Burroughs School and magna cum laude from Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts.

According to Beth Riggert, Communications Counsel with the Supreme Court, the seven-member Appellate Judicial Commission will open Stith’s vacancy in the future. The public can nominate individuals to be considered. Traditionally, the commission interviews all applicants. A panel of three nominees are recommended to the governor. The governor then has 60 days to appoint a nominee to the court.

Missouri Supreme Court to hear key Sunshine law case on Wednesday involving costs for public records

February 2, 2021 By Brian Hauswirth

The Missouri Supreme Court will hear remote oral arguments on Wednesday in Jefferson City in a key Sunshine law dispute between GOP Governor Mike Parson’s office and a former Democratic candidate for attorney general.

The case is “Elad Gross vs. Governor Parson.” While there are several arguments in this case, the biggest one is whether public governmental bodies such as the governor’s office can charge costs for searching for and researching public records.

This case began in October 2018 when Elad Gross, who later ran for attorney general in 2020, sent a Sunshine request to the governor’s office regarding campaign contributions. The governor’s office said the request found more than 13,600 documents and would cost about $3,600 to produce and take up to 120 business days to provide.

Gross later amended his request and received about 60 pages, some of which were redacted.

Mr. Gross alleges that Governor Parson’s office charged excessive fees. However, then-Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia M. Joyce dismissed Gross’ case. Judge Joyce, a Democrat, has since retired.

Gross is appealing to the Missouri Supreme Court, which will hear the case Wednesday morning at 9. Counselor Gross wants the Missouri Supreme Court to rule that the governor’s office violated the state Sunshine law.

Mr. Gross has filed a 48-page brief with the Missouri Supreme Court, saying the governor’s office abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily and in not waiving or reducing fees with his first Sunshine request.

Gross also questions why he was being charged $40 per hour when state law calls for record production “using employees of the body that result in the lowest amount of charges for search, research and duplication time,” according to his brief.

Governor Parson’s office is being represented by Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office. Deputy Attorney General Jeremiah Morgan has filed a 37-page brief with the Missouri Supreme Court.

Deputy Attorney General Morgan’s main argument involves the plain language of the Sunshine Law, saying it authorizes research time to be charged at the actual cost and does not require a waiver of those costs. Mr. Morgan also says closed and privileged material can be redacted from responsive documents.

Morgan also addresses Gross’ complaint about the $40 rate, saying the $40 per hour rate is the hourly rate of the lowest-paid attorney on the Governor’s staff. Morgan also says that research time is a major part of an attorney’s work.

“The fundamental question in this case is whether a public governmental body, such as the Governor’s office, can charge its actual costs for searching, researching, or duplicating public records, even if some or all of the research is done by an attorney that is an employee of the public governmental body. The answer is, unquestionably, yes,” Deputy Attorney General Morgan writes, in his brief.

Morgan says the governor’s office followed the Sunshine Law’s plain language, and he’s asking the Missouri Supreme Court to affirm Judge Joyce’s ruling.

This case is also attracting major interest from other groups, who have filed what are known as amici briefs. That means friends of the court.

Attorneys Bernard Rhodes and Brad Johnson represent the “Kansas City Star”, and attorneys Joseph Martineau and Lewis Rice represent the “St. Louis Post-Dispatch.” They’ve filed an amici brief.

“The Sunshine Law does not allow public governmental bodies to charge for time attorneys spend reviewing public records because no provision in the Sunshine Law authorizes such charges,” the newspaper attorneys write, in their 31-page brief.

The Missouri Press Association and the “Missouri Sunshine Coalition” have also submitted amici briefs.

The Missouri Municipal League, which represents about 650 municipalities across the state, has also filed an amici brief.

COVID will impact Wednesday’s oral arguments. Counselor Gross and Deputy Attorney General Morgan will argue their cases remotely, via zoom. Chief Justice George Draper will be the only Missouri Supreme Court judge in the Jefferson City courtroom. The other six judges will participate remotely.

The Missouri Supreme Court has been conducting remote arguments since the Lamar Johnson case in April 2020, due to COVID concerns.

Missouri state senators and Missouri Supreme Court judges will observe State of State from upper gallery

January 26, 2021 By Brian Hauswirth

Missouri Governor Mike Parson’s State of the State address Wednesday in Jefferson City will look different than any other State of the State speech in recent history.

Missouri Governor Mike Parson points during his State of the State Address on January 15, 2020 in Jefferson City, as then-House Speaker Elijah Haahr and Lt. Governor Mike Kehoe applaud (file photo courtesy of the governor’s Flickr page)

That’s due to COVID-19 precautions.

The Missouri House was not in session last week, due to COVID concerns. State Sen. Andrew Koenig, R-Manchester, announced Friday that he’s tested positive for COVID. State Sens. Bill Eigel, R-Weldon Spring, and John Rizzo, D-Independence, announced on Tuesday that they will both quarantine, after being in close contact with someone who’s tested positive for COVID. Rizzo is the Senate Democratic Leader.

The State of the State Address is significant, because it’s the venue where the governor outlines his 2021 legislative priorities and his budget blueprint. The speech is delivered in the Missouri House chamber, before a rare joint session of the Legislature.

While the 162 current Missouri House members will sit at their desks like normal, Missouri state senators and the Missouri Supreme Court judges will be seated in the right upper gallery, for coronavirus safety precautions. State senators normally sit in chairs set up on the House floor, near the dais. The seven Missouri Supreme Court judges normally are seated to the governor’s right, near the front of the House chamber.

Missouri Capitol technicians have also worked to finish a projector for the Capitol Rotunda, which will serve as an overflow seating area for those who can’t get into the House chamber on Wednesday. Parson spokeswoman Kelli Jones tells Missourinet about 50 to 75 chairs will be set up in the Rotunda area, while maintaining social distancing.

Because of COVID issues, attendance in the Missouri House chamber will be limited on Wednesday. The joint session is expected to begin at 3 pm. Governor Parson will speak sometime after that. Jones says the governor has recently practiced his speech in the House chamber.

Missouri’s current operating budget is about $38 billion, which includes two supplemental budgets with federal money. The State of the State highlight’s the governor’s budget priorities. We’ll also learn Wednesday whether or not Governor Parson’s proposed budget includes a pay increase for state employees. That’s a big issue in mid-Missouri. More than 14-thousand state employees work in Cole County, making state government Jefferson City’s largest employer.

House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, and other top House Democrats plan a press conference on Wednesday afternoon at 4, to respond to the governor’s State of the State Address.

Missourinet will have live coverage of the State of the State Address, beginning at 3 o’clock. Reporter Brian Hauswirth will also have live interviews with state lawmakers in both parties, after the speech. In addition to Missourinet, the speech will also be live-streamed on the governor’s Facebook page.

Missouri Supreme Court issues key ruling involving juvenile murderer

November 24, 2020 By Brian Hauswirth

A Missouri prisoner who was 16 when she killed a man during a meth transaction in western Missouri’s Cass County will remain in prison for now, under a key ruling Tuesday from the Missouri Supreme Court.

Convicted killer Jessica Hicklin is currently incarcerated at the Potosi Correctional Center in Mineral Point (June 2020 file photo courtesy of the Missouri Department of Corrections)

The inmate, 41-year-old Jessica Hicklin, was sentenced in April 1997 to mandatory life without parole. Hicklin is incarcerated at the maximum-security Potosi Correctional Center in southeast Missouri’s Mineral Point.

Prosecutors say Hicklin was 16 when Sean Smith was shot and killed.

Hicklin began challenging her sentence after the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2012 that juveniles cannot be given mandatory sentences of life without parole.

In Tuesday’s 20-page unanimous decision, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected Hicklin’s claim that the Missouri statute giving her parole eligibility after 25 years is unconstitutional.

In its ruling, the state court notes U.S. Supreme Court precedent gives states two options for fixing mandatory juvenile life-without-parole sentences for juveniles already sentenced: either resentence them or give them meaningful opportunity for release after considering certain circumstances, including their youth.

Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) spokeswoman Karen Pojmann tells Missourinet that Hicklin’s parole hearing is tentatively set for July 2021. The murder happened in 1995, and Hicklin entered state prison in April 1997 but received credit for time served in the county jail.

Hicklin also contended that the authority of Missouri’s Probation and Parole Board violates the state’s separation of powers. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected that.

Tuesday’s decision was written by Missouri Supreme Court Judge Laura Denvir Stith. You can read the full 20-page ruling here.

Missouri Supreme Court hears arguments in key case involving 2018 labor bill

November 17, 2020 By Brian Hauswirth

The Missouri Supreme Court heard remote oral arguments on Monday afternoon in a key case involving public-sector employee labor laws.

The Supreme Court heard 36 minutes of arguments in a complicated case that involves a 2018 Missouri bill, that was sponsored by State Rep. Jered Taylor, R-Nixa. Republicans describe that bill, House Bill 1413, as paycheck protection, while Democrats view it as anti-labor.

In January, St. Louis County Circuit Judge Joseph Walsh III declared the bill “void in its entirety,” and prevented any of its provisions from being enforced. The state appealed.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer says the trial court erred several times, and emphasizes that no provision of the bill violates public employees’ rights to bargain collectively.

“There’s unrefuted, unrebutted evidence in the summary judgment record in this case that the plaintiffs submitted no evidence at all to refute that directly addresses how the various provisions of House Bill 1413 do protect in advance employees’ ability to select representatives of their own choosing,” Sauer tells the court.

You can read the full 146-page brief submitted by Solicitor General Sauer here.

Seven labor unions that represent public sector employees in Missouri disagree with Mr. Sauer, and are asking the state Supreme Court to affirm Judge Walsh’s decision. Those unions include the Missouri National Education Association, Ferguson-Florissant National Education Association and the Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local Union Number 42.

National Education Association attorney Jason Walta, who represented the plaintiffs at the Missouri Supreme Court, says the 2018 bill dramatically curtails public-sector collective bargaining.

“I think that the trial court wrote a very thoughful and excellent decision in this matter. He (Judge Walsh) considered the issues very carefully, and I think that it’s a decision that’s worthy of this court’s affirmance,” Walta tells the Supreme Court.

Counselor Walta says the bill infringes on the rights of employees to bargain collectively. You can read the full 103-page brief submitted by Counselor Walta here.

Because of COVID concerns, Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice George Draper III was the only judge in the Jefferson City courtroom on Monday. The other six Supreme Court judges participated remotely, as did Counselors Sauer and Walta. Capitol reporters listened to the arguments remotely.

There is no timeframe on when the Supreme Court will issue a decision.

Missouri Supreme Court hears notary requirement arguments; no word on when court will rule

October 6, 2020 By Brian Hauswirth

The Missouri Supreme Court heard remote oral arguments on Tuesday afternoon in an appeal that aims to remove a notary requirement for mail-in voting for the November general election.

In April, the Missouri NAACP, the League of Women Voters and three registered voters sued the state, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) and others, arguing that the steps to vote by mail during a pandemic are unconstitutional.

The Missouri NAACP and its ACLU attorneys say Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem erroneously upheld the notarization requirement, and they also express concern about a scarcity of notaries.

Missouri Solicitor General D. John Sauer disagrees with that. Counselor Sauer argued on behalf of the state and Secretary Ashcroft.

“The trial court (Cole County circuit court) pointed out that there are, even on plaintiff’s calculation, there are 44,000 notaries in the state of Missouri available to notarize absentee ballots. And there are hundreds of notaries in the secretary of state’s volunteer program,” Sauer tells the court.

He says invalidating the notary requirement is not realistic because voting by mail began on September 22. He says changing the rules midway through the process would subject Missouri voters to different legal requirements during the same election cycle.

Sauer also says invalidating the notary requirement would require reprinting of absentee and mail-in ballot envelopes across Missouri.

The ACLU disagrees with Sauer. They also say that the Cole County circuit court committed multiple errors and erroneously upheld a notarization requirement that imposes burdens on Missourians who are seeking to vote during a global pandemic.

ACLU Foundation attorney Sophia Lin Lakin argued the case on Tuesday.

“No voters will be subjected to different standards here. All voters would exercise their fundamental right under the same standard: having their ballots counted regardless of notarization,” Lin Lakin tells the court.

Some physicians and epidemiologists have filed as friends of the court. They say requiring voters to have absentee ballots notarized present unavoidable increased risks of transmitting the virus that causes COVID.

The ACLU also says Judge Beetem has misapplied a federal case that’s never been applied in Missouri.

There is no word on when the Missouri Supreme Court will rule. One of the questions the Supreme Court is considering is whether the Cole County circuit court failed to consider evidence of burdens associated with requiring ballots to be notarized.

Missouri lawmakers approved the legislation on the final day of session in May. House Democrats were successful in having a photo ID provision removed, in a compromise with Republicans. The legislation from State Rep. Dan Shaul, R-Imperial, has two but separate options.

The first expands absentee voting to those 65 and older, or who are vulnerable to COVID-19, such as elderly residents. Notarization is not required for those 65 and older or who are vulnerable.

The second option expands voting by mail for everyone, but requires notarization.

Click here to read the 128-page brief from the Missouri NAACP, League of Women Voters, ACLU and others.

Click here to read the 121-page brief from Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office, from Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

Missouri Supreme Court to hear lawsuit over election notary requirement

October 5, 2020 By Alisa Nelson

The Missouri Supreme Court is scheduled to hear an appeal Tuesday that aims to remove a notary requirement for mail-in voting in the November General Election.

The Missouri Supreme Court

In April, the Missouri NAACP, the League of Women Voters and three registered voters sued the state, the secretary of state and local election officials arguing that the steps to vote by mail during a pandemic are unconstitutional. They say the new state law requiring many voters to get a notary could put their health and the health of others at risk during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Last month, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetum dismissed the case. He pointed to an expert the League provided during the trial admitting that social distancing and other precautions are consistently effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

The challengers then appealed the case to the high court.

Ballot envelopes for absentee and mail-in voting have already been printed and are being mailed.

Missourinet plans to cover the hearing.

Western Missouri judge decides on key slot machine case

September 24, 2020 By Brian Hauswirth

The controversial issue of slot machines could end up going to the Missouri Supreme Court in Jefferson City.

The “St. Joseph News-Press” reported today that a judge in western Missouri’s Platte County ruled that two “no chance” slot machines found at a Parkville convenience store violate state gambling laws. Judge Thomas Fincham found the company, Integrity Vending of Kansas, guilty of felony promoting gambling by setting up and operating a slot machine.

That’s a class E felony. Judge Fincham has scheduled a November 23 sentencing hearing in Platte City. The “News-Press” reports Integrity Vending could face a fine of $10,000.

Platte County Prosecutor Eric Zahnd prosecuted the case. He says despite the fact that the slot machines are seen in many Missouri convenience stores and gas stations, they are illegal slot machines, from his perspective.

Zahnd, who was first elected in 2002, has the longest tenure of any elected prosecutor currently serving the Kansas City metro.

The slot machine issue was the subject of at least three hearings in late 2019 by the Missouri House Special Interim Committee on Gaming, which was chaired by State Rep. Dan Shaul, R-Imperial.

During an October 2019 hearing, Chairman Shaul predicted that whichever sides loses the Platte County case would appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court.

The Missouri State Highway Patrol testified at that hearing, saying the number of complaints about illegal gambling in Missouri quadrupled in 2019. Most of those complaints were about alleged illegal slot machines.

The Missouri Gaming Commission testified in 2019 that any illegal gaming machines used in Missouri negatively impact casinos and the state Lottery, reducing taxes and funding for education and veterans.

Missouri court says redistricting plan’s summary language has ‘major problems’

August 31, 2020 By Alisa Nelson

The Missouri Court of Appeals says part of the summary language for the Amendment 3 November ballot measure has “major problems” and needs new wording. In a written court decision Monday, the three-judge panel says the description, written by the Republican-controlled Legislature, “fails to acknowledge” what the amendment would do, which is to “substantially modify, and reorder the districting criteria approved by voters” in 2018.

Missouri court says legislative redistricting plan’s ballot summary language has ‘major problems’

The court unanimously ordered the summary to explain that the measure would transfer responsibility for drawing districts from a non-partisan demographer to Governor-appointed bipartisan commissions. It does not have a problem with language on the provisions detailing paid lobbyist gift restrictions and campaign donation limits.

On August 17, Cole County Judge Patricia Joyce ordered the ballot summary to be changed because she said the language is “misleading, unfair, and insufficient” and therefore in violation state law. She submitted a description that went further in explaining the lobbyist and campaign gift restrictions.

The “No on Amendment 3” campaign sued some state officials over the language. The state could ask to have the case transferred to the Missouri Supreme Court.

According to Missouri Secretary of State spokesperson Maura Browning, the language must be finalized by September 8 for the November ballot.