Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interlocutory Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let Missouri attorney general appeal preliminary injunctions that block laws pending final judgment
Summary
House Bill 839 would permit the Missouri attorney general to immediately appeal certain preliminary injunctions that bar enforcement of state statutes, regulations, or constitutional provisions; proponents said it would bring Missouri closer to federal practice and provide earlier appellate clarity, while critics urged guardrails and symmetry.
House Bill 839 would allow the Missouri attorney general to appeal preliminary injunctions that bar state implementation, enforcement or effectuation of provisions of the Missouri Constitution, statutes or regulations.
Supporters argued the change would allow appellate courts to resolve dispositive legal questions earlier in litigation. Jay Adkins, First Assistant Attorney General, told the committee that in Missouri "only final judgments are eligible for appeal," and that the proposed change would permit the state to seek earlier appellate review of preliminary rulings so the state need not wait years for a final judgment to obtain clarity on the law.
Adkins said the measure is intended to solve a recurring practical problem; he cited ongoing litigation around Amendment 3 in Jackson County as an example where an inability to appeal a preliminary injunction has left the state's enforcement in limbo for an extended period. "That preliminary ruling can be appealed in the federal system and so we can all get clarity on the law before we all invest the time and effort to go through a trial on the merits," he said.
Opponents and some neutral witnesses said the statute of appeal rights in Missouri is statutory and that any expansion should be balanced and contain limits. John Beatum, a retired Cole County circuit judge who testified in opposition to the bill's current form, said the right to appeal is statutory and that, if the legislature allows interlocutory appeals of preliminary injunctions, the law should be "equal and fair" to both sides and include procedural guardrails — for example, limits on delay and protections so that appeals do not freeze all case activity when fact development is required.
Committee members asked whether the bill was driven by particular cases; proponents said conversations predated any one case but that recent litigation reinforced the issue. The hearing ended with debate over drafting details and calls for limits and parity in any new appeal authority.
