First trial in lawsuits challenging state control of St. Louis police underway in Jefferson City 24%
By Rachel Lippmann0%
5/7/2026, 10:00:00 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, False Dilemma, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 21.2% saturation with 156 hits. Analysis detected 884 faulty-reasoning hits from 736 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.5% and a BS Rank of 24% (12,904 of 16,813 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.70% of the article peer group.
A trial that will help decide the fate of the Missouri law that brought the St.
Louis Metropolitan Police Department back under state control is underway in Jefferson City.
Attorneys for two St.
Louis taxpayers began presenting their arguments Wednesday to Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green.
Jamala Rogers and Mike Milton filed suit last June.
They argued the law, which gave control of the department to a state-appointed board, violates the Missouri Constitution by requiring the city to fund its police department to a certain level without providing any additional money.
“If the state legislature wants a certain amount of funding, the state legislature is welcome to appropriate money for it, but it cannot force the citizens of St.
Louis through their taxes to pay for it,” said Maureen Hanlon, a staff attorney at ArchCity Defenders who was part of a team representing Rogers and Milton.
Milton is the executive director of the Freedom Community Center, which works to address underlying causes of violence like poverty or interpersonal conflicts.
His organization received a city grant to expand its work that he said is at risk as police budgets keep growing.
Rogers is a longtime activist for police accountability and transparency who is opposed to the state takeover because it goes against the results of a 2012 statewide referendum authorizing St.
Louis to establish its own police force for the first time since before the Civil War.
Lawyers for the attorney general tasked with defending the state takeover said the desire for local control was not just about the expense to the city.
“The city doesn’t want to spend as much on the police as needs to be spent, but with respect to the money that is spent, the city would rather spend it on social workers and various programs that it says relate to public safety than spend it on officers on patrol,” said Patrick Sullivan, the head of the attorney general’s litigation section.
Mayor Cara Spencer was among the witnesses called to outline the new expenses brought on by the passage of state control, as well as the potential financial impacts on the city.
In addition to setting aside a required funding percentage for police, the city now has to cover lifetime health care and life insurance benefits for more retired officers.
That leaves less money to support other departments such as streets, forestry and health, Spencer said.
“Are there any state appropriations that you are aware of to pay for the costs of these new activities?”
Hanlon asked.
“I wish,” Spencer replied.
While the police department is a critical part of the city’s function, the mayor said, “it is also part of a larger city that has a lot of other obligations that also not only play into public safety but also public well-being.”
Milton and Rogers also argue that the state control law is unconstitutional because it’s a special law written solely to impact the City of St.
Louis.
That will be a trickier argument to make thanks to a pair of 2019 state Supreme Court rulings that say if any “rational basis” can be found to justify a law, it is constitutional, no matter how narrowly it applies.
The defendants will present their case on Thursday.
It is likely to focus heavily on alleged dysfunction within the SLMPD during local control that made it harder for officers to do their jobs.
That would provide a clear reason for the state to take the department back.
Other legal challenges
The lawsuit heard Thursday is one of three challenging the state takeover, all on slightly different grounds.
A case filed by St.
Louis Board of Aldermen President Megan Green is also being heard this week alongside Rogers and Milton’s case.
She challenged the state takeover as a special law and an unfunded mandate as well, but also sued over provisions she said violated her free speech rights.
Most of those counts have been dismissed.
Her attorney is now arguing solely that the legislation that included the state takeover provisions violates constitutional requirements that bills cover a single subject and have a clear title.
He will make his case on Thursday.
A suit filed last month in St.
Louis by Spencer also calls the state takeover an unconstitutional, unfunded mandate.
That case is still in its very early stages.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.