Two Missouri state lawmakers and a central Missouri resident have filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that Senate Bill 3, which includes the Show-Me Sports Investment Act, is unconstitutional.Republican state Sen. Michael Moon, who represents southwest Missouri; Republican state Rep. Bryant Wolfin, who represents Ste. Genevieve; and Missouri resident Ron Calzone, described as a citizen activist, filed the suit against the state, Gov. Mike Kehoe and Attorney General Andrew Bailey.The lawsuit claims SB 3, passed during a special session in June, violates multiple provisions of the Missouri Constitution. The plaintiffs say the bill did not follow rules requiring legislation to have a clear title, single subject and single purpose, according to a news release from their attorney, W. Bevis Schock.“This bill is clearly multi-subject. It deals with property taxes, it deals with the stadium tax subsidy, it deals with tax credits with the natural disaster,” Rep. Wolfin said. “The Hunt family, the Royals or the Cardinals, the only three orgs that fall under this guideline, then you’re very clearly violating Article I, Section 2, because you are picking winners and losers. You’re not making a law that’s applicable to all Missourians.”The plaintiffs argue SB 3 is a “special law” that applies only to a limited group and is therefore unconstitutional. They also contend the law unlawfully grants taxpayer money to private entities, specifically the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.“No rational person, taxpayer or organization would contribute funds to a stadium project while getting only 50 cents back, except a team occupying the stadium which would thus be the team receiving the revenue from the games held at the stadium,” the lawsuit states.The lawsuit further alleges that the ownership groups of the two teams threatened to leave Missouri if subsidies weren’t offered, prompting the bill’s passage.“No one will ever know whether the owners were bluffing because the legislature caved to the owners’ demands (albeit in Plaintiffs’ views, unconstitutionally),” the filing said.In its sharpest language, the suit calls the bill a “bribe.”“The stadium subsidies are a bribe paid to sports team owners to meet their extortion demand to stop them from leaving Missouri for Kansas,” the release said. “The way the numbers work, it appears the legislature and the governor are sticking taxpayers with most of the salary of Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes.”Wolfin said part of the goal is to create precedent at the state’s highest court.“The overall goal would be to just get Supreme Court precedent that bills like this are unconstitutional, that way, it will prevent bills like this in the future,” he said.Matt Harris, associate professor of political science at Park University, said the legal challenge creates uncertainty for stadium negotiations.“I think that just adds to a bit of the uncertainty. And, you know, it’s probably a headache for the people who want to keep the Chiefs and Royals in Missouri,” Harris said.He also noted that the severability clause in the bill could complicate the court’s response.“There’s really a lot to digest. I think it’s hard for us to stand here right now and say with any certainty what the outcome will be, because, among other things, the bill has a severability clause, which means even if a judge comes back and says you can’t do that, the state could argue, ‘Well, you can lop that part off, and the rest of it is still good.’”Harris added, “I think there’s a legitimate argument that, hey, taxpayers shouldn’t be funding stadiums for billionaires, and this money could be better spent elsewhere.”The plaintiffs are asking for the bill to be declared unconstitutional or blocked before it takes effect on Aug. 28, 2025. The suit says they meet the legal threshold to sue as taxpayers.
Two Missouri state lawmakers and a central Missouri resident have filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that Senate Bill 3, which includes the Show-Me Sports Investment Act, is unconstitutional.
Republican state Sen. Michael Moon, who represents southwest Missouri; Republican state Rep. Bryant Wolfin, who represents Ste. Genevieve; and Missouri resident Ron Calzone, described as a citizen activist, filed the suit against the state, Gov. Mike Kehoe and Attorney General Andrew Bailey.
The lawsuit claims SB 3, passed during a special session in June, violates multiple provisions of the Missouri Constitution.
The plaintiffs say the bill did not follow rules requiring legislation to have a clear title, single subject and single purpose, according to a news release from their attorney, W. Bevis Schock.
“This bill is clearly multi-subject. It deals with property taxes, it deals with the stadium tax subsidy, it deals with tax credits with the natural disaster,” Rep. Wolfin said. “The Hunt family, the Royals or the Cardinals, the only three orgs that fall under this guideline, then you’re very clearly violating Article I, Section 2, because you are picking winners and losers. You’re not making a law that’s applicable to all Missourians.”
The plaintiffs argue SB 3 is a “special law” that applies only to a limited group and is therefore unconstitutional.
They also contend the law unlawfully grants taxpayer money to private entities, specifically the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.
“No rational person, taxpayer or organization would contribute funds to a stadium project while getting only 50 cents back, except a team occupying the stadium which would thus be the team receiving the revenue from the games held at the stadium,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit further alleges that the ownership groups of the two teams threatened to leave Missouri if subsidies weren’t offered, prompting the bill’s passage.
“No one will ever know whether the owners were bluffing because the legislature caved to the owners’ demands (albeit in Plaintiffs’ views, unconstitutionally),” the filing said.
In its sharpest language, the suit calls the bill a “bribe.”
“The stadium subsidies are a bribe paid to sports team owners to meet their extortion demand to stop them from leaving Missouri for Kansas,” the release said. “The way the numbers work, it appears the legislature and the governor are sticking taxpayers with most of the salary of Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes.”
Wolfin said part of the goal is to create precedent at the state’s highest court.
“The overall goal would be to just get Supreme Court precedent that bills like this are unconstitutional, that way, it will prevent bills like this in the future,” he said.
Matt Harris, associate professor of political science at Park University, said the legal challenge creates uncertainty for stadium negotiations.
“I think that just adds to a bit of the uncertainty. And, you know, it’s probably a headache for the people who want to keep the Chiefs and Royals in Missouri,” Harris said.
He also noted that the severability clause in the bill could complicate the court’s response.
“There’s really a lot to digest. I think it’s hard for us to stand here right now and say with any certainty what the outcome will be, because, among other things, the bill has a severability clause, which means even if a judge comes back and says you can’t do that, the state could argue, ‘Well, you can lop that part off, and the rest of it is still good.’”
Harris added, “I think there’s a legitimate argument that, hey, taxpayers shouldn’t be funding stadiums for billionaires, and this money could be better spent elsewhere.”
The plaintiffs are asking for the bill to be declared unconstitutional or blocked before it takes effect on Aug. 28, 2025.
The suit says they meet the legal threshold to sue as taxpayers.