STLPR0%
Judge expresses skepticism on parts of law putting St. Louis police under state control 13%
By Rachel Lippmann0%
5/7/2026, 9:25:51 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Burden of Proof, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 6.6% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 255 faulty-reasoning hits from 527 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.6% and a BS Rank of 13% (14,716 of 16,813 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.50% of the article peer group.
A judge in Cole County has expressed skepticism over parts of a 2025 law that placed the St.
Louis Metropolitan Police Department back under state control.
A trial challenging the constitutionality of the law wrapped up Thursday at the courthouse in Jefferson City.
Circuit Judge Daniel Green will issue his ruling at a later date.
The lawsuit filed by St.
Louis activists and taxpayers Jamala Rogers and Mike Milton argued that portions of the bill setting minimum required percentages of funding for the department and expanding the number of people eligible for lifetime health insurance coverage violated the ban on unfunded mandates because they did not come with any additional state funding.
Green indicated in conversations with attorneys that he was leaning toward finding the expanded benefits unconstitutional.
While it's unlikely that would lead to the entire law being thrown out and police oversight returning to the local level, Milton said he was still confident that would eventually happen.
"I think I just believe in us," he said.
"I believe in our attorneys, I know what I see on the ground and it's really hard to deny the beautiful work that's happening in St.
Louis city to help us be safe."
Rogers said she knows lawmakers will probably try to fix state law to shift those benefit costs back to St.
Louis.
"I think we just need to be especially informed in this next process," she said.
In defending the constitutionality of the state takeover, the attorney general's office argued that laws on the books even while the SLMPD was under city oversight dictated minimum funding levels for the department.
"The plaintiffs have failed to make their burden of providing specific proof of a new or increased activity and associated increased costs," said Assistant Solicitor General Lexi Overcash.
And even if the specific funding percentages are mandated new spending, Overcash said, they clearly fall under an exception to the Hancock Amendment for police spending.
"This exception allows the General Assembly to ensure that cities like St.
Louis meet the actual needs of the police department and prevent cities from defunding their police departments," she said.
While opponents of the takeover argued the language in that exception applies only to Kansas City, the state disagreed.
Green will also rule at a later date in a second lawsuit he heard this week.
The case filed by St.
Louis Board of Aldermen President Megan Green also challenged the state takeover as an unfunded mandate, but included other 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.
A ruling on those grounds could jeopardize other measures that passed alongside the state takeover, including provisions boosting prosecutor pay and stiffening penalties for stunt driving.
A suit filed last month in St.
Louis by Mayor Cara Spencer also calls the state takeover an unconstitutional, unfunded mandate.
That case is still in its early stages.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.