HB 3277 authorizes cities meeting specific population and county size criteria (e.g., certain population ranges within defined counties) to impose a 0.5% sales tax for public safety, including funding police, fire, and emergency medical services. Before implementation, the city must seek voter approval through a referendum. All tax revenue must be deposited into a special fund and used exclusively for public safety purposes, with remaining funds after tax termination also dedicated to public safety. The bill applies to multiple qualifying cities across the state, not exclusively to one city like Northwoods.
SB 1616 restricts access to Missouri's SNAP food assistance and MO HealthNet medical benefits for non-U.S. citizens, requiring applicants to prove citizenship, national status, or specific federal immigration eligibility. It mandates documentary proof (like driver's license documents or federal status verification) at application, with temporary benefits allowed via sworn affidavit for up to 90 days or until citizenship documentation is provided. The bill explicitly excludes emergency medical care, prenatal services, children's benefits (when applied for by a citizen parent), and certain other non-cash aid like unemployment or postsecondary education. It also requires state agencies to verify immigration status through federal systems like DHS's SAVE program but prohibits denying benefits based solely on data matching.
HB 3414 creates new criminal penalties for fraud involving access devices (like credit cards, phone numbers, or account credentials) and telecom identifiers. It prohibits specific acts such as using counterfeit or stolen devices to obtain $1,000+ in value, trafficking in device-making equipment, intercepting telecom data, or illegally modifying devices to access services without authorization. Violations carry fines or up to 20 years in prison, depending on the offense and whether it’s a repeat violation. The law directly affects individuals committing these fraud schemes, while financial institutions, telecom carriers, and law enforcement (via the Missouri Attorney General) are key stakeholders. It does not impact legitimate business practices or ordinary consumers.
HB 3443 modifies court cost collection rules in Missouri by establishing specific fees for various court services, such as $5 for filing a lien, $10 for child support records, and $50 for appeals. It requires the Supreme Court to set fee levels that match judicial system costs and mandates annual inflation adjustments starting in 2027 based on the Consumer Price Index. All collected fees go to the statewide court automation fund, covering costs like probate filings, small claims cases, and criminal proceedings. The bill affects courts (as collectors), defendants (as payers), and the judicial system (as fund recipient), with changes applying to cases filed on or after September 1, 1994.
HB 3483 requires Missouri's legislature to develop educational materials for public schools about how the state's government works. The bill mandates that these resources explain Missouri's legislative process and how it is shaped by the U.S. Constitution, Missouri's Constitution, and federal/state laws. Materials may include real-world experiences, publications, place-based learning activities, civic engagement opportunities, and digital tools. This bill directly affects Missouri public schools and students by requiring new civic education content focused on government structure and processes. The bill is currently in its early stages, having been introduced on February 26, 2026.
HB 2865 modifies how "reasonable fees and expenses" are calculated in legal challenges against Missouri state agencies. It directly affects small businesses (with net worth under $7 million and 500 employees or fewer) and individuals (net worth under $2 million) who sue or are sued in administrative proceedings. Key provisions cap attorney fees at $75 per hour (unless special factors justify more) and limit expert witness payments to the state's highest rate for similar cases. The bill applies to most agency disputes but excludes cases involving child custody, driver's licenses, or tax matters.
HB 2777, the "Public Nuisance Reform Act," restricts public nuisance lawsuits by setting strict rules for who can file claims and what remedies are allowed. It exempts legal product sales (like approved medications), government-authorized activities, and aggregated private injuries from being classified as public nuisances. Plaintiffs must prove a defendant’s actions directly caused the nuisance with specific evidence, and private individuals can only sue for unique "special injuries" (not general public harm), with limited recovery limited to compensatory damages. The bill also limits government lawsuits to local jurisdictions, requires governor approval for attorney general claims, and bans awards for future abatement costs or emotional damages.
HB 2667, titled the "Eliminate Criminal Profiteering Act," modifies negligence claims in Missouri. It prohibits individuals engaged in "wrongful conduct" (defined as criminal activity or intentional torts) from suing for negligence related to that conduct, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant (Section 3). Additionally, it bars unauthorized immigrants from recovering general damages or lost wages in negligence claims arising from automobile accidents, requiring plaintiffs to prove lawful status via documentation (Section 4). The law directly affects plaintiffs in security negligence cases involving criminal activity and immigrant plaintiffs in car accident claims. It does not change criminal laws but alters civil liability for specific negligence scenarios.
HB 2965 requires Missouri school districts to implement a new graduation requirement starting in the 2027-28 school year. The bill mandates the state education department to develop a curriculum framework for Black history and Black literature courses in grades 9-12, to be adopted by the state board of education by 2027-28. All Missouri high school students must complete one unit of credit each in Black history and Black literature to earn a diploma, with limited waivers for transfer students who completed similar courses elsewhere. This policy directly affects public high school students and school districts across Missouri.
SCS/SB 1536 - This act establishes the Designated Health Care Decision-Maker Act. Specifically, a health care provider or health care facility may rely on good faith and reasonable medical judgment for health care decisions made by designated health care decision-makers if two physicians determine that the patient is incapacitated. The physician or the physician's designee shall make reasonable efforts, as described in the act, to inform potential designated health care decision-makers of a patient's incapacitation. Designated health care decision-makers may be selected from the following persons listed by priority: (1) The spouse of the patient; (2) An adult child of the patient; (3) A parent of the patient; (4) An adult sibling of the patient; (5) A grandparent or adult grandchild of the patient; (6) The niece or nephew or the next nearest relative of the patient; (7) A religious person who is a member of the patient's community; (8) Any nonrelative with a close personal relationship who is familiar with the patient's values; or (9) A person unanimously agreed upon by those in the priority list. Priority shall not knowingly be given to those listed if abuse or neglect is reported, the person with priority cannot be reached by the physician, or if the probate court finds that the person with priority is making decisions contrary to the patient's instructions. Furthermore, this act does not prevent any person interested in the patient's welfare, a health care provider, or a health care facility from petitioning the probate court for the appointment of a guardian. A designated health care decision-maker shall make reasonable efforts to obtain information regarding the patient's health preferences and make decisions in the patient's best interests. Additionally, a designated health care decision-maker may only authorize the withdrawal or withholding of nutrition or hydration supplied through either natural or artificial means in certain situations as specified in the act. Once a health care decision-maker or physician believes that the patient is no longer incapacitated then the patient shall be reexamined. If the patient's physician determines that the patient is no longer incapacitated, then the physician shall certify the decision and the basis therefor in the patient's medical record and shall notify the patient, the designated health care decision-maker, and the person who initiated the redetermination of capacity. Rights of the designated health care decision-maker shall cease upon the physician's certification that the patient is no longer incapacitated. This act further provides that no health care provider or health care facility that makes reasonable efforts to locate and communicate with potential designated health care decision-makers shall be liable for the effort to identify and communicate with a potential designated health care decision-maker. Nothing in this act shall be construed as condoning, authorizing, or approving euthanasia or mercy killing, or as permitting any affirmative or deliberate act to end a person's life. This act is similar to HB 1886 (2026), SB 356 (2025), HB 747 (2025), SB 1055 (2024), HCS/HB 144 (2017), the perfected HCS/HB 381 (2017), SB 493 (2017), SB 493 (2016), and HCS/HB 2502 (2016). KATIE O'BRIEN
The provided context does not include the actual text or policy details of SB 1499 ("Food is Medicine Act"). The official abstract only states the bill's title without describing its provisions, affected parties, or mechanisms. Without this information, a factual summary of what the bill does or how it would operate cannot be generated. The bill's recent procedural steps (prefiling, committee referral) indicate it is in early stages but do not clarify its content. A summary of the bill's substance cannot be created from the given information.
HB 2760, the "PRAISE Act," prohibits state and local governments from restricting religious services during emergencies declared under specific laws, directly affecting places of worship and their attendees. It ensures religious services cannot be made impractical by emergency orders, unless the emergency involves imminent dangers like wildfires or terrorism that apply broadly to the area. The bill allows places of worship to be exempt from general emergency restrictions and provides a legal path for civil lawsuits seeking injunctions, damages, or declarations if violations occur. It explicitly excludes emergency evacuations for immediate threats but requires services to resume once the danger passes.
