Section 2.5 Cases Involving the Validity of a Treaty, Statute, or State Constitutional Provision

• Library: App Ct Prac 2015 Supp

1. (§2.5) Cases Involving the Validity of a Treaty, Statute, or State Constitutional Provision

Rule: The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction of substantial, constitutional challenges to a treaty or statute of the United States or to a state statute or state constitutional provision.

Under Mo. Const. art. V, § 3: “The supreme court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States, or of a statute or provision of the constitution of this state . . . .”

The key word is “validity.” In practice, that means that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of a constitutional challenge to a state or federal statute, federal treaty, or the state constitution. See State ex rel. Union Elec. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 687 S.W.2d 162, 164–65 (Mo. banc 1985). The party may challenge the provision under either the federal or the state constitution. The party may argue that the provision is invalid on its face or as applied to the facts of the particular case. Beatty v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 700 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Mo. banc 1985).

Such a challenge must be “real and substantial; not merely colorable.” Wright v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 25 S.W.3d 525, 528 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); State v. Charity, 637 S.W.2d 319, 321 (Mo. App. S.D. 1982). The test of “substantiality” is whether the claim involves “a contested right, involving some fair doubt and reasonable room for controversy.” Kasch v. Dir. of Revenue, 18 S.W.3d 97, 98 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000); see also Charity, 637 S.W.2d at 321; State v. Egan, 272...