HB 2108 transfers ownership of multiple state-owned land parcels in Cole County to the City of Jefferson. It specifically conveys three main tracts (totaling approximately 2.2 acres) and associated temporary construction easements described in detailed survey language. The bill requires the state to relinquish all rights to these properties without conditions, formally transferring them to Jefferson City for municipal use. This is a straightforward property transfer with no additional policy provisions or funding mechanisms.
SB 977 proposes to prohibit state courts from applying or enforcing foreign legal systems, including Shari'a law, in civil or criminal cases. It would directly affect legal disputes where foreign law might otherwise be considered, such as in family law, contracts, or inheritance matters. The bill's key mechanism requires courts to disregard foreign legal codes when making decisions, ensuring state law governs all proceedings. This bill remains under review in the Judiciary Committee as of its latest committee vote.
SB 916 extends Missouri's sovereign immunity protection - typically shielding government entities from lawsuits - to private contractors working under contracts with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). It grants contractors the same legal protection from tort claims as public entities, covering work performed under MoDOT-approved plans and specifications from the start of project work until formal acceptance of the completed project. This applies specifically to contractors and subcontractors working on MoDOT projects, not to general public or other government services. The bill does not alter existing exceptions to immunity, such as claims involving dangerous property conditions or vehicle accidents.
This bill's details are not provided in the available context beyond its title and basic procedural status. The official abstract only names the "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act" without describing its specific provisions, mechanisms, or affected parties. As it has only been prefaced and referred to a committee with no further action documented, no concrete policy changes can be summarized. The context lacks the necessary information to describe what the bill does or who it would directly affect.
SB 835 modifies legal procedures for debt collection in civil court cases, specifically addressing attachment (freezing assets before trial), execution (seizing property after a judgment), and garnishment (withholding wages or bank funds). The bill directly affects creditors seeking to collect debts and debtors facing these collection actions. However, the official abstract provides no specific details on the proposed changes to these procedures, and the bill is still in early stages (prefiled, with a committee hearing scheduled). Without concrete provisions outlined in the provided context, a summary of specific mechanisms or policy changes cannot be accurately generated.
SB 1135, known as "Bentley's Law," requires courts to mandate child support payments for parents convicted of driving while intoxicated (DUI) who already have existing child support obligations. The bill directs judges to include specific child maintenance requirements in sentencing or court orders for these individuals. It directly affects parents with children who face DUI convictions and fail to meet current child support duties. The key provision ensures child support is formally integrated into DUI-related legal proceedings without requiring separate court action.
This bill creates the Missouri Rangers, a new training program for school protection officers designed to prepare them for handling emergency and violent crisis situations in schools. The Missouri State Professional Standards and Training Commission will oversee the program, which includes up to 160 hours of training covering firearms, active shooter response, defensive tactics, and other related skills, with physical requirements based on age. People who complete the training will receive a certificate and badge, and their arrest powers will be limited to weapons offenses and trespassing on school property, though active law enforcement officers are exempt from this restriction. The bill also specifies uniform requirements, mandates that Rangers be considered employees of the hiring school for liability purposes, and grants them qualified immunity.
HB 1696 establishes a clear priority order for who can make burial or cremation decisions for a deceased person, directly affecting families, funeral homes, and military dependents. It prioritizes: (1) an attorney-in-fact named in a durable power of attorney for this purpose, (2) a military-designated person via DD-93 form, (3) a surviving spouse, (4) surviving children (with guardian roles clarified for minors), and (5) other relatives or friends who assume costs. The bill requires decision-makers to be 18+, mentally competent, and willing to cover costs, while protecting funeral homes that follow claims of "next-of-kin" without liability if they verify properly. It also sets a 48-hour objection window if someone with a higher priority is notified, preventing disputes over final arrangements.
SB 1019 modifies rules governing hospital investments and service areas, but the provided context does not specify the exact changes or who is directly affected. The bill's official abstract and summary lack details on the specific provisions being altered or the mechanisms involved. As a procedural bill in early committee review (prefiled January 2025, referred to committee January 2026), no concrete policy changes are described in the available information. Without further details on the modifications, a substantive summary cannot be provided.
SB 1067 - This act establishes the "Uniform Public Expression Protection Act". Currently, any action against a person for conduct or speech undertaken or made in connection with a public hearing or meeting in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a tribunal or decision-making body of the state or a political subdivision thereof is subject to a special motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or motion for summary judgment and any such motion shall be considered by the court on a priority or expedited basis. This act repeals this provision and creates procedures for dismissal of causes of action asserted in a civil action based on a person's: (1) Communication in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding; (2) Communication on an issue under consideration or review in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding; or (3) Exercise of the right of freedom of speech or of the press, the right to assemble or petition, or the right of association, guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Missouri Constitution, on a matter of public concern. However, this act shall not apply to a cause of action asserted: (1) Against a governmental unit, as described in the act, or an employee or agent of a governmental unit acting in an official capacity; (2) By a governmental unit or an employee or agent of a governmental unit acting in an official capacity to enforce a law to protect against an imminent threat to public health or safety; or (3) Against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services if the cause of action arises out of a communication related to the sale or lease of such goods or services. No later than 60 days after a party is served with a complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or other pleading that asserts a cause of action covered by this act, or at a later time upon a showing of good cause, a party may file a special motion to dismiss. The court shall hear and rule on such motion no later than 60 days after the filing of the motion, unless the court orders a later hearing to allow for limited discovery or upon good cause. However, this act provides that the court shall hear and rule on the motion for dismissal no later than 60 days after the order allowing for discovery. This act provides that all other proceedings between the moving party and the responding party in the action, including discovery and any pending hearings or motions, shall be stayed upon the filing of the special motion to dismiss. Additionally, this act provides that the court may stay, upon motion by the moving party, a hearing or motion involving another party or discovery by another party if a ruling on such hearing or motion or discovery relates to a legal or factual issue. Any stay pursuant to this act shall remain in effect until the entry of an order ruling on the special motion to dismiss and the expiration of the time to appeal the order. A moving party may appeal an order denying the special motion to dismiss in whole or in part within 21 days of such order. If a party appeals an order ruling on a special motion to dismiss, this act provides that all proceedings between all parties shall be stayed until the conclusion of the appeal. The court may allow discovery if a party shows that specific information is necessary to establish whether a party has satisfied or failed to satisfy the requirements of this act and such information is not reasonably available without discovery. Additionally, a motion for costs and expenses, voluntary dismissal, or a motion to sever shall not be stayed. During a stay, the court upon good cause may hear and rule on any motions unrelated to the special motion to dismiss and any motions seeking a special or preliminary injunction to protect against an imminent threat to public health or safety. In ruling on a special motion to dismiss, this act provides that the court shall consider the parties' pleadings, the motion, any replies and responses to the motion, and any evidence that could be considered in a ruling on a motion for summary judgment. The court shall dismiss the cause of action with prejudice if: (1) The moving party has established that the cause of action is covered by this act; (2) The responding party has failed to establish that this act does not apply to the cause of action; and (3) Either the responding party failed to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action, or the moving party has established that the responding party failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted or that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a cause of action that is subject to a special motion to dismiss pursuant to this act shall not affect the moving party's right to obtain a ruling on the motion and seek costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and reasonable litigation expenses. Additionally, if the moving party prevails on the motion, this act provides that such costs, fees, and expenses shall be awarded to the moving party. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice of a cause of action that is subject to a special motion to dismiss establishes that the moving party prevailed on the motion. The responding party shall be entitled to such costs, fees, and expenses if the responding party prevails on the motion and the court finds that the motion was frivolous or filed solely with the intent to delay the proceeding. Finally, this act applies to causes of action filed or asserted on or after August 28, 2026. This act is identical to provisions in the truly agreed to and finally passed CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SBs 835 & 1111 (2026), in SCS/SB 1468 (2026), SB 503 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 615 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 1259 (2025), and SB 1293 (2024) and is substantially similar to HB 2666 (2026), provisions in HCS/HB 83 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 176 (2025), in SB 352 (2025), HB 1092 (2025), in SCS/SB 897 (2024), HB 1785 (2024), in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), in CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), SB 432 (2023), HB 750 (2023), SB 1219 (2022), in HCS/SS#2/SCS/SB 968 (2022), HB 2624 (2022), and HB 1151 (2021). KATIE O'BRIEN
SS/SCS/SB 890 - This act requires each state department with oversight of an administrative entity to submit an annual report to the General Assembly detailing any administrative entity that has not convened a public meeting or conducted public business during the three year period ending on August 28th of such year. The act further repeals and reassigns duties for a number of administrative entities. The Division of Workforce Development within the Department of Economic Development is renamed and moved to the Office of Workforce Development within the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development. The Board for Certification of Interpreters is repealed and its duties assigned to the Missouri Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. The Life Sciences Research Board is repealed and its duties assigned the Department of Economic Development. The act repeals the Missouri Quality Home Care Council is repealed as well as all duties of the Council. The act repeals the following entities: the Career Readiness Course Task Force; the Infection Control Advisory Panel; the Missouri Arthritis Advisory Board and the Arthritis Program Review Committee; the AgriMissouri Advisory Commission for Marketing Missouri Agricultural Products; the Coordinating Board for Early Childhood; the Minority Environmental Literacy Advisory Committee; the Missouri Cybersecurity Commission; the Small Business Compliance Advisory Committee; and the Commission on the Special Health, Psychological and Social Needs of Minority Older Individuals. This act is similar to SB 729 (2025). JIM ERTLE
HB 2366 prohibits Missouri employers from knowingly hiring individuals without legal work authorization. It requires businesses receiving state contracts over $5,000, tax credits, or state-administered loans to verify employees’ work eligibility through federal programs and submit annual sworn affidavits. The state attorney general would enforce these rules, with businesses able to use federal program participation as a defense against violations. Emergency periods (like natural disasters) temporarily suspend the verification requirement for 15 days.
