Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Don't miss
Home / Opinions / Courts / Missouri Supreme Court / Missouri Supreme Court Digest: Feb. 14, 2022

Missouri Supreme Court Digest: Feb. 14, 2022


Information Disclosure

Constitutional Challenge
Marijuana Cultivation License

Where the state’s Department of Health and Senior Services challenged a trial court judgment quashing its preliminary writ in prohibition and denying the department’s petition for a permanent writ of prohibition, arguing that it cannot constitutionally be compelled to disclose data submitted by applicants for medical marijuana licenses, the judgment is affirmed because the plain language of the state constitution allows confidential information obtained from applicants and licensees to be used for purposes of an appeal of the department’s decision denying an applicant’s license.

Judgment is affirmed.

State ex rel. Department of Health and Senior Services v. Slusher (MLW No. 77877/Case No. SC99205 – 9 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Draper III, J.; all concur) Appealed from circuit court, Cole County, Beetem, J. (James R. Layton, St. Louis, for the department) (Joshua L. Hill, Jefferson City, for Kings Garden).


Right Of Referendum

Petition Signatures

Statutory Challenge

Where the state appealed a trial court judgment finding statutes that prohibited the collection of referendum petition signatures before the certification of the official ballot title were an unconstitutional interference with the right of referendum, the judgment is affirmed because the prohibition interfered with and impeded the right of referendum by unreasonably shortening the time for petition circulation.

Facially valid

Dissenting opinion of Powell, J.; “I respectfully dissent because Sara Baker, the ACLU of Missouri, and No Bans on Choice (collectively, ‘Challengers’) have not demonstrated sections 116.180 and 116.334.2 are facially invalid….Because circumstances exist in which sections 116.180 and 116.334.2 may be applied without interfering with or impeding the constitutional right of referendum guaranteed in article III, sections 49 and 52(a) of the Missouri Constitution, Challengers’ facial challenge seeking to invalidate these statutes must be rejected.”

Judgment is affirmed.

No Bans On Choice v. Ashcroft (MLW No. 77878/Case No. SC98879 – 20 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Russell, J.; Wilson, C.J., Breckenridge, Draper, Ransom, JJ., concur; Powell, J., dissents in separate opinion filed; Fischer, J., concurs in opinion of Powell, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Cole County, Beetem, J. (D. John Sauer and Jason K. Lewis, Jefferson City, for the state) (Anthony E. Rothert, Jessie Steffan and Molly Carney, St. Louis, and Gillian R. Wilcox, Kansas City, MO for the challengers).