Court Opinion

ID: 9823527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:00:53.353654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:19.935025
License: Public Domain

Richard B. Teitelman, Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I respectfully dissent from the principal opinion only to the extent it holds that the *770city of Springfield and the Missouri Municipal League lack standing to assert a claim based on article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution. Article I, section 13 provides “that no ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, can be enacted.” The plain language of article I, section 13 provides that no law “retrospective in its operation ... can be enacted.” The plain meaning of this language is that the General Assembly is barred, without exception, from enacting any retrospective laws. While the principal opinion notes, correctly, that there is a line of cases holding otherwise, these cases are inconsistent with the plain language of article I, section 13 and were wrongly decided. Therefore, I would hold that the city and the Municipal League have standing to pursue a claim based on article I, section 13.