Missouri Supreme Court Strikes Down SB 22: A Process Failure the Supermajority Must Fix

The Missouri Supreme Court invalidated SB 22 in its entirety—not because the Court opposed its policy objectives, but because the bill was passed in violation of the Missouri Constitution’s “original purpose” rule. This ruling is a warning: if legislators will not follow constitutional discipline, even “good goals” will collapse in court.

What the Court ruled

In Nicholson v. State of Missouri (SC101308), the Missouri Supreme Court held that SB 22 was enacted in violation of the Missouri Constitution and therefore must be invalidated in its entirety.

Why SB 22 was struck down

Missouri’s Constitution includes a procedural safeguard commonly described as the “original purpose” rule:

“No bill shall be so amended in its passage through either house as to change its original purpose.”

The purpose is simple: prevent surprise, prevent “logrolling,” and make sure the public and legislators can see what a bill actually is.

SB 22 started as a ballot-summary bill

SB 22 was introduced as legislation focused on ballot summaries and related judicial review procedures. Act for Missouri supported the objective—Missourians deserve clarity and fairness in what appears on the ballot.

Then the bill was expanded into something else

As the bill moved through the Senate, legislators added a significant, unrelated provision affecting injunction appeals—changing a different statute and expanding the Attorney General’s authority in a way that was not germane to ballot-summary judicial review.

The Court concluded this crossed a constitutional line: the final version no longer matched the “earliest title and contents” of the bill. When that happens, the bill is procedurally unconstitutional—even if parts of it might be desirable policy.

Why the Court refused to “save” the ballot-summary parts

Many Missourians will ask a fair question: why didn’t the Court simply remove the offending provision and leave the rest? The Court explained that severance is only appropriate when the Court can be confident that the General Assembly would have passed the bill without the unconstitutional part. On this record, the Court said that high standard was not met.

Act for Missouri’s commentary

Act for Missouri supported the objective of SB 22. But the lesson from this ruling is bigger than one bill: legislators must start following the Missouri Constitution.

We are sure we will see posts attacking the Court for “throwing SB 22 out.” In this case, we do not blame the courts. We blame a legislative process that has become careless—often treating constitutional requirements like optional suggestions.

If the Republican supermajority had done this correctly—pushed the original bill through cleanly, or started a separate bill and kept it to one purpose—Missouri would not be in this position.

What should happen next

• Pass clean bills. One purpose. One subject. Clear titles. No procedural shortcuts.
• Stop giving courts an easy target. If you want reforms to last, pass them constitutionally.
• Hold leadership accountable. A supermajority is meaningless if it produces laws that collapse on review.

Missouri doesn’t need more “wins” that get overturned. Missouri needs constitutional lawmaking that survives scrutiny.

Read the full ruling

We encourage everyone to read the opinion directly. You can download it here: /pdfs/sb22.pdf.

Disclaimer: This article is for public education and commentary and is not legal advice.