Missouri
Lawsuit claims new Missouri court secrecy law is unconstitutional • Missouri Independent

A state law requiring secrecy in court filings violates the Missouri Constitution’s requirement for open courts and imposes steep new costs on litigants, especially those pursuing appeals, a lawsuit filed last week argues.
The lawsuit, filed in Cole County by the Missouri Broadcasters Association, two attorneys and William Freivogel, editor of the Gateway Journalism Review, asks for the courts to overturn the law, passed during the 2023 legislative session.
Along with violating Missourians’ rights to courts that are open, the lawsuit alleges that the law violates First Amendment free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution and sections of the Missouri Constitution limiting lawmakers’ powers to expand bills beyond their original scope.
Under the law and rules implementing it, every reference to a witness or victim in every case filing must be censored or the attorney filing it risks sanctions.
“For example, court records cannot even name the victim of a murder case – even though murder is a terrible crime of great interest to every Missouri community and citizen,” the lawsuit states. “This makes it difficult for citizens and the media to fully follow and understand criminal cases of great interest. And there is no privacy interest for redacting murder victims’ names, because homicide victims, being deceased, have no personal privacy interest.”
Removing those names can be time consuming and – when lawyers charge hundreds of dollars per hour – expensive, said Dave Roland, one of the attorneys working on the case.
Missouri hides more court information from the public than other states
The rules put additional burdens on prosecutors, defense attorneys and counsel in civil cases to scour their filings for possible violations, Roland said. The task is multiplied many times when preparing cases for an appeal, he said, because a party seeking to overturn a lower court ruling must file a complete copy of the court record – including transcripts of trials and other hearings – with all the prohibited information removed.
Transcripts are already expensive, Roland said.
“Depending on the length of the trial you know, the cost can vary,” he said. “If you have a one day trial, it may only be a couple of hundred dollars for the transcript. If you’ve got a multi-week trial, then it could be thousands of dollars.”
The two attorneys who are parties to the case, Michael Gross and Nina McDonnell, have turned down clients because of the additional cost and time
“For example, Plaintiff McDonnell recently refused an employment discrimination direct appeal from a 12-day trial because redacting the transcripts would have required time the potential client could not afford, and the firm could not absorb,” the lawsuit states.
Roland’s co-counsels on the case include former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Mike Wolff, who with Roland will represent Freivogel and the two attorneys, and Mike Nepple, Mark Sableman and Justin Mulligan of Thompson Coburn, representing the broadcasters.
In October, writing for Gateway Journalism Review, Sableman called Missouri the “State of Unnamed Persons.”
The new law hurts the public by hiding information, makes it difficult for attorneys outside the case to evaluate it and leaves people interested in a case unsure about how it was handled, he wrote.
Even judges writing appellate opinions must follow the rules and leave out any individual identifiers, he noted.
“You can’t tell if ‘Expert Witness’ in one case had been found to lack credibility in a previous case,” Sableman wrote “You can’t tell if Officer D.V. in State v. Smith was found guilty of misconduct in another case. If you know and care about a particular case, you can’t tell if the witnesses you know about were called to testify or considered by the court.”
The broadcasters association joined the lawsuit because court records are a staple of news reporting, said Chad Mahoney, executive director of the association.
“You have to have the facts and the context to give people the whole truth,” Mahoney said. “And now a lot of the context, according to what we’re hearing from some of our member newsrooms, is lost, making it very difficult for them to inform the public about what’s going on.”
The lawsuit not only asks the court to throw out the law requiring censorship of court documents, it also argues that the bill in its entirety violates procedural rules in the constitution for passing bills.
Under those rules, a bill changing court operating rules established by the Missouri Supreme Court must be “a law limited to the purpose.” In addition, bills cannot be amended to change their original purpose and must deal with “one subject clearly expressed in its title.”
The bill that included the court censorship language began in the Senate as a four-page bill changing the dates in one section of state law concerning when a fund to support court automation expires, with a title stating it was about court automation.
When it left the Senate, it was five pages long and included a pay raise for court reporters. The title stated it was about court operations.
When it returned from the House, it was 54 pages long, it altered 29 sections of state statutes and the title stated it was about judicial proceedings. There are at least five provisions that have nothing to do with the courts, the lawsuit states.
State Rep. Rudy Viet, a Wardsville Republican, shepherded the bill through the House. He could not be reached Monday for comment on the lawsuit.
The provision was added on the House floor by state Rep. Justin Hicks, a Lake St. Louis Republican. Hicks could not be reached Monday for comment.
Hicks, a candidate for the GOP nomination to Congress in the 3rd District, has used the courts repeatedly to bury embarrassing information about his past. In 2021, he persuaded a St. Louis County judge to seal the records from a 2010 domestic violence case when a woman accused Hicks, then 17, of choking her.
A consent order signed by Hicks barred him from contact with the woman for a year.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
When a potential candidate for Hicks’s House seat published copies of the order and other material from the case online, Hicks sued him and accused him of publishing private information. After initially sealing the case, St. Charles County Circuit Judge W. Christopher McDonough opened it, saying there was no “compelling justification” to keep it closed. The case has since been dismissed.
Because the lawsuit has just been filed, there has been no response from the state. But because the attorney general’s office, which will have to defend the law, has already been troubled by violations in its own court filings, Roland hopes for a quick resolution.
“It is possible, and this is me being optimistic, that the attorney general’s office may recognize that they’ve got a significant constitutional problem on their hands,” Roland said.
In a pending appeal of a $23 million award to HHS Technologies over a breach of contract claim with the state Medicaid system, Bailey’s office had to file the same set of documents three times to get the redactions right, the Kansas City Star reported.
“This illustrates the problem,” Roland said. “If the attorney general’s office is going to get dinged for failing to make proper redactions, it illustrates the problem.”

Missouri
Missouri veterans homes struggle year after year without consistent funding

ST. LOUIS, Mo. (First Alert 4) — Missouri is constantly on the brink of losing a veterans home because funding can vary from year to year.
One lawmaker is sounding the alarm on funding for Missouri’s veterans homes, saying the taxes the states rely on for these specialized care facilities are not dependable. The Missouri Veterans Commission relies on marijuana tax revenue and casino admission fees but has no set line in the state budget if these two avenues falter.
Before he represented Jefferson City in the Missouri House, Dave Griffith was a Green Beret.
Now he’s fighting a different battle: to keep Missouri’s veterans homes open and operational.
“These are veterans that we made a promise to,” Griffith said. “When we raise our hands as veterans, we make a pledge to our country to protect and serve. At the same time, the country made a pledge to us. That when you get to this point in your life, when you need skilled nursing services, we’re going to be there for you. And we’re failing them.”
Missouri’s seven veterans homes are currently serving 848 veterans, and almost all of them have waitlists. They offer specialized services, from haircuts to physical therapy, at a partially subsidized rate for veterans who can no longer care for themselves.
“Age is not a determining factor, we have everything from 40s up to, we’ve got a veteran who was in the Battle of the Bulge, so I think he’s 103 years old right now,” said Missouri Veterans Commissioner Director Ret. Col. Paul Kirchhoff.
It’s a fight every year to ensure funding since there is no permanent line item in the state budget for veterans homes. Kirchhoff said before the funds were secured this year, the commission had been deferring critical maintenance on some of the homes and even discussing which one they could afford to close.
“A lot of businesses have a 5-year plan, 10-year plan, I can’t do it because I don’t know what kind of funding I’m going to get year to year,” Kirchhoff said.
A portion of the tax revenue from both medical and recreational marijuana goes to the Missouri Veterans Commission. Missouri Cannabis Trade Association Spokesperson Erin Schrimpf said marijuana has been selling at three times the rate expected before legalization. She said the industry expects it will continue to thrive and provide the state with ample sales tax.
“Missouri’s regulated market is thriving and has a lot of support,” Schrimpf said.
The Veterans Commission received nearly $34 million from marijuana taxes this fiscal year, but that’s not the bonus people thought it would be. It’s just enough to maintain veterans homes.
“A lot of people think that with the marijuana funding that there could be additional programs that we could start, that’s just not the case,” Kirchhoff said.
The amount veterans homes receive from casino admissions has been decreasing steadily, from $30 million in 2013, to $11 million in 2023, which is the last full fiscal year the Missouri Gaming Commission has reported. Although casinos in Missouri are reporting increased revenue, they’re getting less foot traffic and the admissions fees stay the same.
Griffith wants to get a new line item in the budget, $50 million in general revenue for veterans homes. He only has one year left in office, but expects his colleagues to carry on the battle after he’s gone.
“It’s a battle that I’m not afraid to fight, and I will continue that battle until I have to walk out of this building,” Griffith said.
Copyright 2025 KMOV. All rights reserved.
Missouri
Abortion providers send patients out of Missouri after ban effectively reinstated

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (KFVS) – Missourians seeking abortions are fleeing to Kansas or Illinois after a court judgement essentially reinstated the state’s abortion ban.
Since the Missouri Supreme Court decided a Jackson County judge’s ruling was not efficient, abortions are effectively banned in Missouri again unless the lower court can rule again. Abortions providers in and out of Missouri have noted that patients are going out of the state to receive care just one day later.
After the Dobbs decision, Missouri was the first state to ban abortion. In November 2024, Missouri voters legalized abortion in November when 52% of them voted “yes” on Amendment Three.
Amendment Three was put on the ballot by initiative petition, having to receive thousands of signatures from people all over Missouri. It faced several legal challenges along the way, going all the way to the state’s Supreme Court before the matter was settled.
A Jackson County Judge stopped Missouri’s licensing requirements for abortion providers, saying they were unfairly restrictive and singled out abortion providers in February. Shortly after, Planned Parenthood started offering abortions at several locations.
Tuesday, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the legal reasoning behind the Jackson County ruling was not sufficient, which puts all the abortion regulations back into effect.
When abortion was banned in Missouri after the Dobbs decision but before Amendment Three, data from the Guttmacher Institute shows about 10,000 Missourians traveled to Kansas or Illinois each year to receive abortions.
Rianne Hawkins with Planned Parenthood Great Rivers said the clinic is determined to continue providing abortions, even if it can’t do so in Missouri.
“We’re working really hard to make sure that all the patients that need that care are able to receive that abortion care, whether they have to go to Kansas or Illinois,” Hawkins said.
Hope Clinic in southern Illinois said about 40% of its out-of-state patients since Roe v. Wade was overturned are from Missouri. Co-owner Julie Burkhart said she will continue to work with Missouri abortion clinics during this uncertain time.
“We’ve seen firsthand how they struggle to deal with rising travel costs and logistical barriers like taking time off work and finding childcare. Beyond making it harder for people to access abortion, restrictions also create fear and stigma around this safe, common form of reproductive health care.”
The Jackson County judge can reverse the decision with another ruling. Planned Parenthood said its legal team has already filed a response to Tuesday’s ruling.
Meanwhile, anti-abortion advocates have already turned their attention to the next battle. Another vote on abortion will take place after lawmakers passed a bill to put abortion back on the ballot. Anti-abortion advocates like Brian Westbrook with Coalition Life said Amendment Three was misleading and this new measure will clear things up.
“There’s a lot of work being done behind the scenes,” Westbrook said. “Rallying the troops, getting synergy around this ballot initiative.”
Under the bill passed by the Missouri general assembly, abortion will be on the ballot again in November 2026.
Copyright 2025 KFVS. All rights reserved.
Missouri
Missouri's resources for substance use disorder (LISTEN) – Missourinet


Substance use disorder can have temporary or lasting effects on your physical, mental, and social health. Missouri 988 can point you or a loved one in the right direction.
During Mental Health Awareness Month, it is critical to understand the resources available if you or a loved one is leaning on substance use.
Jean Sokora, Dunnica Sobering Support Center Program Director, joins Cameron Conner on Show Me Today to discuss the impacts of substance use disorder.
This sponsored interview is in collaboration with Missouri 988.


-
Education1 week ago
Video: Columbia University President Is Booed at Commencement Ceremony
-
Culture1 week ago
Do You Know the English Novels That Inspired These Movies and TV Shows?
-
Education1 week ago
How Usher Writes a Commencement Speech
-
Politics1 week ago
Expert reveals how companies are rebranding 'toxic' DEI policies to skirt Trump-era bans: 'New wrapper'
-
Technology1 week ago
AMD’s new RX 9060 XT looks set to challenge Nvidia’s RTX 5060
-
News1 week ago
Read the Full ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Report
-
News1 week ago
'Golden Dome' Missile Shield To Be 1st US Weapon In Space. All About It
-
Technology1 week ago
Are Character AI’s chatbots protected speech? One court isn’t sure