City of St. Louis v. State

• Decision Date: 26 April 2022
• Docket Number: SC 99290
• Citation: 643 S.W.3d 295
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS; St. Louis County; and Jackson County, Appellants, v. STATE of Missouri; and Eric Schmitt, Attorney General of Missouri, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

643 S.W.3d 295

CITY OF ST. LOUIS; St. Louis County; and Jackson County, Appellants,

v.STATE of Missouri; and Eric Schmitt, Attorney General of Missouri, Respondents.

No. SC 99290

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Opinion issued April 26, 2022

The city was represented by Michael A. Garvin and Robert H. Dierker of the city counselor's office in St. Louis, 314) 622-3361.

St. Louis County was represented by Mary L. Reitz of the St. Louis County counselor's office in Clayton, (314) 615-7042.

Jackson County was represented by Dawn J. Diel of the Jackson County counselor's office in Kansas City, (816) 881-3811.

The state and attorney general were represented by D. John Sauer and Jesus A. Osete of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, (573) 751-3321.

GEORGE W. DRAPER III, Judge

The City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and Jackson County (hereinafter and collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the Second Amendment Protection Act (hereinafter "SAPA"), codified in sections 1.410 through 1.485,¹ is unconstitutional and requesting injunctive relief. The state moved for judgment on the pleadings, alleging Plaintiffs had adequate remedies at law rendering a declaratory judgment improper and, alternatively, defending SAPA's constitutional validity. The circuit court sustained the state's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding Plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law because multiple, individual lawsuits are pending in which Plaintiffs could assert their constitutional challenges. Plaintiffs appealed to this Court.²

This Court holds Plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating they are entitled to proceed with a declaratory judgment action because they lack an adequate remedy at law in which to adjudicate their specific constitutional challenges. Because Plaintiffs failed to file a dispositive pleading and the circuit court did not have the opportunity to adjudicate their constitutional challenges or claims for injunctive relief in the first instance, this Court declines to enter judgment pursuant to Rule 84.14. The circuit court's judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2021, the General Assembly passed House Bills Nos. 85 and 310, collectively known as SAPA, which repealed section 1.320, RSMo 2016, and enacted "in lieu thereof nine new sections relating to the sole purpose of adding additional protections to the right to bear arms, with penalty provisions and an emergency clause." 2021 Mo. Legis. Serv. H.B. 85 & 310. These provisions were codified in sections 1.410 through 1.485.

SAPA's first four sections contain legislative findings and declarations. In particular, section 1.410 contains ten legislative findings and declarations concerning the relationship between the federal government and its federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, and regulations (hereinafter and collectively, "federal gun laws") and the state as they impact Missouri's law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. Section 1.420 declares certain federal gun laws "shall be considered infringements on the people's right to keep and bear arms" in Missouri. Section 1.430 states all federal gun laws "that infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms ... shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall not be enforced by this state." Section 1.440 directs Missouri courts and law enforcement agencies to "protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms" within Missouri "and to protect these rights from infringement as defined under section 1.420."

SAPA's five remaining sections comprise the substantive provisions to enforce these legislative declarations. Section 1.450 removes from Missouri entities, persons, public officers, state employees, and political subdivisions "the authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any" federal gun law "infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as described under section 1.420." However, nothing in SAPA "shall be construed to prohibit Missouri officials from accepting aid from federal officials in an effort to enforce Missouri laws." Id. Sections 1.460 and 1.470 impose civil liability on state political subdivisions and law enforcement agencies that employ individuals who knowingly violate "section 1.450 or otherwise knowingly deprive[ ]" Missouri citizens of their rights to keep and bear arms. Specifically, these actors "shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, and subject to a civil penalty of fifty thousand dollars per occurrence." Section 1.460.1. Moreover, any state "political subdivision or law enforcement agency that knowingly employs an individual acting or who previously acted as an official, agent, employee, or deputy of the government of the United States, or otherwise acted under the color of federal law within [Missouri], who has knowingly" either "[e]nforced or attempted to enforce any of the infringements identified in section 1.420" or "[g]iven material aid and support to the efforts of another who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements identified in section 1.420" is likewise "subject to a civil penalty of fifty thousand dollars per employee hired by the political subdivision or law enforcement agency." Section 1.470.1(1)-(2). Section 1.480.1 defines a "law abiding citizen." Section 1.480.2 sets forth what actions constitute "material aid and support." Subsections (3) and (4) of section 1.480 enumerate exceptions in which providing material aid and support will not constitute a SAPA violation. Section 1.480.5 provides SAPA "shall be applicable to offenses occurring on or after August 28, 2021." Section 1.485 contains a severability clause.

In June 2021, shortly after the governor signed SAPA into law, the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to declare SAPA unconstitutional and moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent SAPA from being enforced while the litigation was pending. The declaratory judgment petition subsequently was amended to add Jackson County as an additional plaintiff. Plaintiffs’ petition alleged SAPA infringed upon rights guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions, curtailed law enforcement officers’ ability to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute criminals: and violated the United States Supremacy Clause. The petition further claimed SAPA violated the Missouri Constitution because it: usurped the power and authority granted to charter cities and counties; did not having a single subject, clear title, or original purpose; created a special law; and infringed upon the separation of powers. The petition stated, because SAPA did not identify specific federal gun laws it deemed unconstitutional, Plaintiffs "were in doubt concerning their rights, duties, and liabilities" under SAPA regarding which federal gun laws could not be enforced. Because sections 1.420 and 1.450 were vague and indefinite, Plaintiffs maintained they "were in doubt concerning their potential liability" under sections 1.460 and 1.470. Plaintiffs alleged, because they employed and continued to employ law enforcement officers who have or will undertake to enforce federal gun laws, they were at risk for civil penalties. Plaintiffs’ petition set forth instances in which SAPA enforcement would be "almost assuredly disastrous" with respect to participating in national criminal background and integrated ballistic databases, working with the federal government on joint task forces and through cooperative agreements, receiving federal funding, training, and equipment, and allowing state law enforcement officers to testify in federal court involving federal firearms offenses. Plaintiffs’ petition concluded by seeking a declaration SAPA was unconstitutional and requesting injunctive relief preventing the implementation, enforcement, or application of the unconstitutional statutes. The parties agreed to continue the preliminary injunction hearing and consolidate it with a trial on the merits because the civil penalties for specific actions would not take effect until August 28, 2021.

The state filed its answer and affirmative defenses, alleging Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove a justiciable controversy ripe for adjudication existed in that they failed to identify any attempt by the state to enforce or threaten to enforce SAPA or demonstrate a concrete dispute in which SAPA affected Plaintiffs’ operations. The state further alleged SAPA was constitutional.

In August 2021, the City of St. Louis renewed its motion for a preliminary injunction, in which St. Louis County and Jackson County joined, and filed memoranda in support. In their renewed motion, Plaintiffs alleged they were parties to several task forces with federal law enforcement agencies. As part of that participation, Plaintiffs’ law enforcement officers regularly participated with federal officers in investigations and arrests involving federal gun law violations and are deputized as federal law enforcement officers for that purpose. Plaintiffs stated they receive federal funds for training, equipment, and overtime pay, along with use of federal equipment, vehicles, and databases. Plaintiffs alleged they were at risk of incurring civil penalties under SAPA for participating in these activities, among other things, and sought to enjoin SAPA enforcement while the litigation was pending. The state opposed the preliminary injunction and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, reiterating that Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove a justiciable controversy ripe for adjudication existed. The state further argued Plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law in that they could assert their constitutional claims as affirmative defenses in any SAPA enforcement action then...