The Missouri Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold the dismissal of a lawsuit against a bill that contained a stadium funding plan as well as a tax credit for disaster victims, including those from the St. Louis tornado in 2025.
The court heard arguments Tuesday in the case, where plaintiffs are hoping for a reversal so that their lawsuit is heard in court.
Passed during a special session in 2025, the stadium portion of the bill allows the state to help pay for new stadiums or stadium renovations for professional teams like the St. Louis Cardinals, Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.
The disaster relief portion allows taxpayers to claim a tax credit for an amount not exceeding $5,000 for the insurance deductible incurred by the taxpayer during the 2025 calendar year as a direct result of a disaster.
The disaster must be one where the governor has requested a presidential disaster declaration.
That means people who suffered damages from the tornado that hit St. Louis in May of 2025 would qualify.
Additionally, the legislation contained a measure on property taxes including requiring 97 Missouri counties to place on the ballot a question of whether to grant a property tax credit.
State Sen. Mike Moon, R-Ash Grove, and Rep. Bryant Wolfin, R-Ste. Genevieve, are two of the plaintiffs in the case. Both legislators continuously speak against legislation that contains multiple policies, rather than a single subject.
Some of the issues brought forward in this case to the Missouri Supreme Court include whether the plaintiffs have taxpayer standing or direct standing to file a lawsuit.
In speaking for the plaintiff, attorney Bevis Schock said this lawsuit should not have been dismissed because it does affect Missouri taxpayers.
"The first and most overriding principle is that taxpayer suits such as this reflect the public interest in preventing unlawful expenditures and holding the government accountable to follow the law," Schock said.
Speaking for the state, Attorney Michael Patton said the high court should uphold the circuit court's dismissal because the plaintiffs in this case have failed to provide a concrete example of an immediate expenditure that this bill caused the state.
While Schock spoke about the fiscal costs note that came with the bill, Patton said it should not be used as an example of a direct expenditure.
"A fiscal note is really, the antithesis of a direct expenditure. It's a projection or an estimate. There's nothing that's direct about it," Patton said.
Attorney Marc Ellinger also spoke on behalf of the state, saying prior cases have made the decision clear for the court.
"It has to be a direct expenditure. That means there can't be intervening steps. There can't be other actions that have to be taken along the way," Ellinger said.
Schock disagreed.
"We think this bill is replete with expenditures, direct expenditures, of funds generated, and we ask the court to reverse and remand," Schock said.
If the Missouri Supreme Court upholds the decision from the circuit court, then the case is dismissed. If the decision is reversed, then the case goes to court.
Copyright 2026 St. Louis Public Radio
