Civil rights law firm sues to block Missouri from taking over St. Louis police
A St. Louis Metro Police car outside Carnahan Courthouse in downtown St. Louis (Clara Bates/Missouri Independent).
A St. Louis civil rights law firm filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the state takeover of the St. Louis police as unconstitutional.
ArchCity Defenders filed the lawsuit in Cole County circuit court on behalf of two St. Louis city residents, Jamala Rogers and Mike Milton. The state and Attorney General Andrew Bailey are the defendants.
The lawsuit seeks to overturn provisions of a bill Gov. Mike Kehoe signed into law in March, which put the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department under a state board instead of local control. The law, reversing a statewide vote from 2012 that put the board under local control, was needed, supporters said, to address high crime rates.
With Kehoe's signature, St. Louis joined Kansas City as the only major metropolitan police force in the country under control of a state board rather than local officials.
The plaintiffs argue the law violates two parts of the state constitution: the prohibition on unfunded state mandates and on special laws targeting a particular locality.
The law will 'subject the city to an unfunded mandate that diverts resources away from needed programs to prevent crime, overturns the democratic vote of the people with no rational basis to believe it will help increase public safety,' the lawsuit states, 'and will derail any progress that has been made in reducing the level of violence and improving law enforcement community relations.'
The bill established a floor for the police budget in St. Louis, setting a minimum portion of general revenue funds that must be used for police each year, rising to 25% in 2028.
Previously, there was no minimum funding requirement for the St. Louis city police, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit argues the city will need to either reallocate money from other programs and services or raise taxes.
The two St. Louis city residents named as plaintiffs are activists who have advocated for policies to reduce poverty, prevent violence and increase community trust in law enforcement, according to the lawsuit.
Those plaintiffs believe that the 'policies they are advocating for and the programs they implement will increase public safety,' the lawsuit states, but that 'funding and support for those policies are now in jeopardy because of the state takeover law.'
The city charter also requires pay parity between police officers and firefighters and emergency medical personnel, meaning that if the state board increases police officers' salaries, the city will be under the increased strain of matching those salaries.
'There will be even less funds available for the city to implement holistic, poverty-reducing programs that have a proven effect on increasing public safety in the region,' the lawsuit states.
Under the state's Hancock Amendment, the state is forbidden from imposing unfunded mandates on local governments.
The second component of the lawsuit argues the law is unconstitutional because it violates the prohibition against the legislature enacting certain local or special laws. It argues the law regulates the affairs of St. Louis when a general state law could be made applicable to it.
'The state has no rational basis for imposing minimum police department funding requirements only on the city of St. Louis and excluding other municipalities from those requirements,' the lawsuit states.
The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the state takeover provisions invalid under the constitution, and sever them from the rest of the wide-ranging crime bill in which they were passed.
The bill restored the governing system that controlled the police department from 1861 until the 2012 vote.
The bill was passed despite the 2012 vote, and 'despite the City's robust funding of the police department at the expense of other needs, and despite the falling crime rate in the city of St. Louis,' the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs argue that the city has struggled to fund services like affordable housing and violence prevention services, which could reduce crime, while providing 'steady funding' for the police department.
The Board of Police Commissioners has six members — the mayor of St. Louis and five people appointed by the governor and subject to state Senate confirmation.
The bill passed on party-line votes in the House and Senate earlier this year, with Democrats opposed.
State takeover of St. Louis police clears legislature, heads to Missouri governor
Opponents argued it was racist because Black Democrats held the major offices in St. Louis at the time of passage and is unneeded because crime is decreasing. Senate Democrats filibustered the bill, winning additions of provisions banning the shackling of pregnant prisoners, establishing a fund for exonerated prisoners to receive restitution from the state and limiting what jails and prisons can charge inmates for phone calls.
Critics point to statistics showing a drop in violent crime in St. Louis under local leadership. They say Kansas City has fared no better despite being under state control since the 1930s.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Community activists sue over state takeover of St. Louis police
ST. LOUIS – A new lawsuit was filed Thursday trying to put a stop to the state takeover of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. 'What's happening at the state legislature is not about safety. It's about power. It's about control,' plaintiff Mike Milton said. Arch City Defenders has filed the lawsuit on behalf of two community activists, Milton and Jamala Rogers. 'Now that they've convinced the state legislature to completely take it over, I don't expect anything but lack of progress,' Rogers said. The lawsuit argues the state takeover bill, House Bill 495 is unconstitutional because it imposes an unfunded mandate on the city and parts of the bill only apply to a single political subdivision; The City of St. Louis. Musk says Trump is named in Epstein files HB 495, signed into law earlier this year, creates a board to oversee the police department. The majority of the board members will be appointed by the governor. The bill received support from the St. Louis Police Officers Association and the Ethical Society of Police. But voters approved local control of the police department back in 2012. 'We have a state legislature that says, 'we don't care what you want. We don't care what you deserve. In fact, we don't even care what the law has said,' Rogers said. It is the second lawsuit now filed regarding HB 495. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey sent FOX 2 a statement saying, 'Instead of filing frivolous lawsuits, this group should focus their efforts on making St. Louis safer, instead of undermining the will of the people's elected representatives who are working to protect it. As Attorney General, I am committed to protecting the people of St. Louis and supporting the men and women of the SLMPD who put their lives on the line every day.' The other lawsuit against the bill was re-filed last month by the city's board of aldermen president Megan Green. The state has not yet filed an official response in court. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Civil rights law firm sues to block Missouri from taking over St. Louis police
A St. Louis Metro Police car outside Carnahan Courthouse in downtown St. Louis (Clara Bates/Missouri Independent). A St. Louis civil rights law firm filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the state takeover of the St. Louis police as unconstitutional. ArchCity Defenders filed the lawsuit in Cole County circuit court on behalf of two St. Louis city residents, Jamala Rogers and Mike Milton. The state and Attorney General Andrew Bailey are the defendants. The lawsuit seeks to overturn provisions of a bill Gov. Mike Kehoe signed into law in March, which put the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department under a state board instead of local control. The law, reversing a statewide vote from 2012 that put the board under local control, was needed, supporters said, to address high crime rates. With Kehoe's signature, St. Louis joined Kansas City as the only major metropolitan police force in the country under control of a state board rather than local officials. The plaintiffs argue the law violates two parts of the state constitution: the prohibition on unfunded state mandates and on special laws targeting a particular locality. The law will 'subject the city to an unfunded mandate that diverts resources away from needed programs to prevent crime, overturns the democratic vote of the people with no rational basis to believe it will help increase public safety,' the lawsuit states, 'and will derail any progress that has been made in reducing the level of violence and improving law enforcement community relations.' The bill established a floor for the police budget in St. Louis, setting a minimum portion of general revenue funds that must be used for police each year, rising to 25% in 2028. Previously, there was no minimum funding requirement for the St. Louis city police, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit argues the city will need to either reallocate money from other programs and services or raise taxes. The two St. Louis city residents named as plaintiffs are activists who have advocated for policies to reduce poverty, prevent violence and increase community trust in law enforcement, according to the lawsuit. Those plaintiffs believe that the 'policies they are advocating for and the programs they implement will increase public safety,' the lawsuit states, but that 'funding and support for those policies are now in jeopardy because of the state takeover law.' The city charter also requires pay parity between police officers and firefighters and emergency medical personnel, meaning that if the state board increases police officers' salaries, the city will be under the increased strain of matching those salaries. 'There will be even less funds available for the city to implement holistic, poverty-reducing programs that have a proven effect on increasing public safety in the region,' the lawsuit states. Under the state's Hancock Amendment, the state is forbidden from imposing unfunded mandates on local governments. The second component of the lawsuit argues the law is unconstitutional because it violates the prohibition against the legislature enacting certain local or special laws. It argues the law regulates the affairs of St. Louis when a general state law could be made applicable to it. 'The state has no rational basis for imposing minimum police department funding requirements only on the city of St. Louis and excluding other municipalities from those requirements,' the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the state takeover provisions invalid under the constitution, and sever them from the rest of the wide-ranging crime bill in which they were passed. The bill restored the governing system that controlled the police department from 1861 until the 2012 vote. The bill was passed despite the 2012 vote, and 'despite the City's robust funding of the police department at the expense of other needs, and despite the falling crime rate in the city of St. Louis,' the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs argue that the city has struggled to fund services like affordable housing and violence prevention services, which could reduce crime, while providing 'steady funding' for the police department. The Board of Police Commissioners has six members — the mayor of St. Louis and five people appointed by the governor and subject to state Senate confirmation. The bill passed on party-line votes in the House and Senate earlier this year, with Democrats opposed. State takeover of St. Louis police clears legislature, heads to Missouri governor Opponents argued it was racist because Black Democrats held the major offices in St. Louis at the time of passage and is unneeded because crime is decreasing. Senate Democrats filibustered the bill, winning additions of provisions banning the shackling of pregnant prisoners, establishing a fund for exonerated prisoners to receive restitution from the state and limiting what jails and prisons can charge inmates for phone calls. Critics point to statistics showing a drop in violent crime in St. Louis under local leadership. They say Kansas City has fared no better despite being under state control since the 1930s. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Missouri governor allows more spending, property tax cap as he pursues stadium deal
State Sen. Kurtis Gregory of Marshall is sponsoring the bill to set aside state tax money to finance new and renovated stadiums for Kansas City sports teams (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent). Gov. Mike Kehoe expanded the agenda of the special session Wednesday enough to win Missouri Senate passage of bills with money for disaster recovery in St. Louis, changes to property taxes policies and tax incentives to finance new or improved stadiums in Kansas City. Initially scheduled to go in at 10 a.m., the Senate finally convened about seven hours later. Talks over what sweeteners Kehoe needed to get his key objective — tax incentives to finance new or renovated stadiums for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals —- culminated in his revised agenda. 'After productive conversations with members of the Missouri General Assembly this week, we are amending our special session call to allow for additional legislation in the areas of disaster relief, tax policy, and budget investments,' Kehoe said in a news release. 'We appreciate legislators working together to use this as an opportunity to show up for our communities by acting swiftly to help those in crisis, while also making smart decisions that secure opportunity for the future.' Under the constitutional limits on a special session, the governor must 'state specifically each matter on which action is deemed necessary.' Any attempt to address an issue not listed in the call for the session can be ruled out of order. The special session began Monday and can continue for up to 60 days. Kehoe is seeking quick action because both teams have offers from Kansas to relocate. The spending bill passed 23-10 in the early morning on Thursday, winning with a coalition of Democrats and Republicans with only Republicans opposed. The bill to finance the stadiums went to the House on a 19-13 vote, with three Democrats joining 10 Republicans in opposition. For several hours the chamber stalled on the stadium bill, working late into the night. The bill includes all the tax provisions necessary to finance the stadiums, plus disaster relief provisions and an expansion of a tax credit program supporting amateur sporting events. Shortly before 1 a.m., the impasse cleared and bill sponsored by state Sen. Kurtis Gregory was given initial approval. Within a few hours, the final votes were held and the Senate adjourned until June 16. For several hours, debate focused on a proposal from state Sen. Joe Nicola, a Republican from Independence, to freeze the maximum increase in annual property tax bills at 5% in some counties. Then state Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat from Olivette, said she had heard enough. 'This discussion that we've had the last several hours is just an effort for the governor to try to get a couple of votes out of the Freedom Caucus for the stadium funding scheme,' McCreery said. She said Kehoe agreed to Nicola's amendment and added it to the call to wear down opposition. Then she blamed Kehoe and Republicans for using a procedural move to shut down debate during the regular session on an abortion ban and repeal of the sick leave law approved by voters in November. Kehoe could have had the stadium plan passed if the procedural move was not used, McCreery said. 'Here we are tonight, masquerading that we care about people and the amount of money that they're paying for things,' McCreery said. Democrats don't trust Republicans, she said, and the Senate should not trust the House. Until the appropriation bill, which totals $361 million including $175 million in general revenue, passes the House. The House refused to pass a bill with $235 million of the same projects and $282 million of additional spending during the session. House Republican leaders waited for the Senate to adjourn on the last day for passing appropriations before revealing that the bill would be spiked. 'We should not be doing anything until (the spending bill is passed) and over the House, and then the House has to have it on its way to the governor before we should be taking any action on anything else,' McCreery said. The stadium funding plan would allocate state taxes collected from economic activity at Arrowhead and Kauffman to bond payments for renovations at Arrowhead and a new stadium for the Royals in Jackson or Clay counties. The cost is estimated at close to $1.5 billion over 30 years. State Sen. Kurtis Gregory, a Republican from Marshall and sponsor of the stadium bill, said the public support for keeping the Chiefs and Royals in Missouri was both a good economic investment and a good investment in the state's image. 'What's at stake if those teams go across the state line is over $2 billion of economic activity inside of the state of Missouri, over 13,000 jobs, and we just let the state of Kansas poach the pride and joy of the western side of the state,' Gregory said. The teams must give Kansas an answer by June 30 on an offer to pay 70% of the cost of new stadiums. Missouri's offer is to cover about half the cost. Some senators have grumbled that the teams should make a commitment to stay in Missouri if the bill is passed. Gregory said their desire to stay should be apparent. 'I also contend that the teams want to stay in Missouri, because if they wanted to go to Kansas, I believe they would have already signed on the dotted line to move those teams,' Gregory said. The spending bill was increased because of demands from St. Louis Democrats that Kehoe address the uncertainty over when or whether President Donald Trump will declare a federal disaster for the May 16 St. Louis tornado. That brought a new $100 million appropriation for storm victims in the city of St. Louis. Previously, the disaster provisions in the call — $25 million for the Missouri Housing Trust Fund to be distributed by the Missouri Housing Development Commission and a tax credit for amounts paid as insurance deductibles — were all applied equally to counties included in disaster requests. Kehoe has submitted four storm events this spring, with damage in 37 counties, to Trump for disaster requests. Two have been granted. The magnitude of the St. Louis tornado — a 22-mile path of destruction that cost five Missouri lives and damaged an estimated $1.6 billion in property damage — surpasses all other damage so far in the state. Damage to public property in the two disasters that have been declared is estimated at $52 million. The other new money added to the spending bill settled an issue for state Sen. Stephen Webber, a Democrat from Columbia. A state contribution to the new research reactor at the University of Missouri, which Kehoe cut from $50 million to $25 million to find money for disaster aid, was returned to $50 million. The only opposition to the spending bill on the floor came from state Sen. Mike Moon, a Republican from Ash Grove, who said the university should tap its $1.4 billion endowment to pay for the reactor. And Moon said he didn't like the disaster relief funds. 'The money that is going to be received by those who were hurt is nowhere near the amount that's going to cause them to be compensated and fully restored,' Moon said. If the state starts paying to repair property after storms, he said, people will not buy insurance. 'I don't think some of this is the proper function of government,' Moon said. 'Compassion, certainly. But unless people take personal responsibility and do the things they should be doing so that we don't have to, when is this going to end?' The tax change Nicola is trying to enact would cap increases in real property tax bills at 5% every two years, corresponding to the reassessment cycle. Officials in 34 counties would have the option of putting the cap in place through a ballot measure. The proposal is a response to rapid increases in property values and the resulting increase in tax bills. There was no estimate available of the potential cost to local governments. Nicola said there were enough protections to make sure all current revenue is maintained and new voter-approved levies are paid. 'Our property tax system in this state, in my opinion, is a disaster,' Nicola said. The amendment is the price of his vote, he told the Senate. 'I am a hard no on the stadium tax bill unless we get some solid property tax relief for my people in Jackson County,' Nicola said. 'I told the governor of this on Monday I can count on one hand how many of my constituents want me to vote for the stadium.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
