GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent).The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a challenge to the state’s stadium subsidy law, ruling that two Republican lawmakers and a conservative activist lacked the legal standing to contest its constitutionality.
In a 5-2 decision, the court upheld a Cole County judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by state Sen. Mike Moon, an Ash Grove Republican, state Rep. Bryant Wolfin, a Ste. Genevieve Republican, and conservative activist Ron Calzone.
The ruling leaves the law intact without addressing the plaintiffs’ allegations that it violates several provisions of the Missouri Constitution.
Gov. Mike Kehoe signed the legislation in June 2025 after calling lawmakers into special session amid a bidding war with Kansas over the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.
The law authorized state aid worth up to half the cost of qualifying stadium projects, along with tax incentives and property tax relief. The Chiefs have since announced plans to move to Kansas, while the Royals are pursuing a new ballpark near downtown Kansas City that could receive substantial state subsidies.
The lawsuit alleged the legislation violated constitutional restrictions requiring bills to contain a single subject, have a clear title and not stray from their original purpose. It also challenged the use of public money to benefit private businesses.
But the Supreme Court never reached those questions.
Writing for the majority, Judge Robin Ransom concluded the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the direct expenditure of taxpayer money necessary to establish standing.
The challengers pointed to a fiscal analysis estimating the Missouri Department of Revenue would spend $10,000 creating a tax form and potentially $175,000 on computer programming to implement portions of the law.
Ransom rejected that argument, finding the estimates were speculative rather than evidence of actual spending.
“Projections are not equivalent to the requirement that a sum be paid out,” she wrote.
The majority also rejected the argument that the stadium subsidies themselves established standing. Any state expenditure, Ransom wrote, would require several additional steps, including an application, government approval and legislative appropriation.
The court likewise reaffirmed a 2011 precedent holding that tax credits generally do not constitute direct government expenditures for purposes of taxpayer standing.
Moon and Wolfin also argued that the legislation’s allegedly unconstitutional passage diminished the effectiveness of their votes as lawmakers. But the court declined to consider that claim because it was not properly presented in their appellate briefing.
Judge Paul Wilson, joined by Judge Mary Russell, dissented.
Wilson argued the lower court’s dismissal was not a final, appealable judgment. Even if the Supreme Court could hear the appeal, he wrote, the plaintiffs had alleged enough potential government spending to survive a motion to dismiss.
He noted that the lawsuit was filed before the law took effect, making it unreasonable to demand proof that money had already been spent.
At a minimum, Wilson argued, the plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their lawsuit to include evidence of expenditures occurring after it was filed.
He also questioned the distinction between ordinary tax credits and refundable credits, which can result in direct payments from the state treasury.
“A refundable tax credit operates just like a check or warrant drawn on the state treasury,” Wilson wrote, “no more and no less.”
