“One-Tax, One-Jurisdiction”: The Missouri Supreme Court Limits Counties’ Marijuana Sales-Tax Authority to Unincorporated Areas

1. Introduction

In Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC v. St. Louis County, Missouri, the Supreme Court of Missouri—sitting en banc—resolved a high-stakes dispute arising from the 2022 constitutional legalization of adult-use marijuana. The fight centered on Article XIV, § 2 of the Missouri Constitution, which permits a “local government” to levy an additional 3 % retail sales tax on non-medical marijuana. After both the City of Florissant and St. Louis County passed 3 % taxes, Robust Missouri Dispensary (Robust), whose dispensary sits inside Florissant, challenged the County’s right to impose the same 3 % tax on the same transactions. The Circuit Court sided with the counties; the Supreme Court reversed. The ruling creates an easily expressed but far-reaching rule:

“In incorporated areas, the only taxing ‘local government’ is the municipality; in unincorporated areas, the only taxing ‘local government’ is the county.”

This commentary unpacks the Court’s opinion, its use of textual canons, the precedents cited, and the probable ripple effects on municipal finance, cannabis regulation, and constitutional interpretation in Missouri.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Holding: The definition of “local government” in Art. XIV, § 2.2(12) is exclusive. A county qualifies as a “local government” only “in the case of an unincorporated area”; a village, town or city qualifies only “in the case of an incorporated area.” Consequently, only one 3 % tax may attach to any retail sale, and St. Louis County’s 3 % tax cannot be collected on sales inside Florissant.
Disposition: Circuit court’s summary judgment for the counties vacated; case remanded with directions to enter judgment for Robust.
Vote: 6–1. Majority opinion by Russell, J.; Fischer, J. dissented.
Standard of Review: De novo review of summary judgment and constitutional interpretation.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Authorities Cited

Weeks v. St. Louis County, 696 S.W.3d 333 (Mo. banc 2024) – Reaffirmed de novo standard for summary judgments.
Faatz v. Ashcroft, 685 S.W.3d 388 (Mo. banc 2024) – Set out textual approach to constitutional interpretation.
Pestka v. State, 493 S.W.3d 405 (Mo. banc 2016) – Emphasized that every constitutional word carries meaning; no surplusage.
Goldsworthy v. Kanatzar, 543 S.W.3d 582 (Mo. banc 2018) – Cited for the principle against giving language redundant effect.
Berhow v. State, --- S.W.3d --- (Mo. banc 2025) – Invoked to avoid “unreasonable or arbitrary results.”
Hawkins v. Hawkins, 511 S.W.2d 811 (Mo. 1974) – Dissent relied on it for rare substitution of “and” with “or.”

The majority drew primarily on core textual canons: plain meaning, avoidance of surplusage, and contextual reading. It declined to deploy broader purposive or substantive canons because it found the language “plain and unambiguous.”

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Textual Definition Controls
Article XIV, § 2.2(12) expressly defines “local government.” The Court treated the two phrases—“in the case of an incorporated area …” and “in the case of an unincorporated area …”—as mutually exclusive gateways, each followed by a singular set of qualifying entities. Interpreting the conjunction “and” merely as a bridge between those gateways preserved every word and avoided merging the categories.
Single-Tax Structure
The Court read § 2.6(5)’s phrase “an additional sales tax” as “additional to state-level taxes,” not an invitation for cumulative local taxes. The drafters contemplated a layered scheme: 4.225 % general sales tax + 6 % state marijuana tax + one local 3 % tax.
Contextual Reading of “Ordinances and Regulations”
The counties argued that the majority’s reading would strip them of the ability to enforce public-health ordinances within cities. The Court answered that § 2.5(3)—limiting which ordinances bind dispensaries—concerns only marijuana-related ordinances; counties remain free to enforce unrelated health codes.
Rejection of “Absurdity” Arguments
Because Article XIV grants primary regulatory power to the Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services, the majority found no public-health vacuum. Thus, the counties’ parade of horribles did not rise to the level of “absurd result” necessary to override plain text.

3.3 Impact Assessment

Fiscal Implications – Counties will collect the 3 % marijuana sales tax only from dispensaries in unincorporated areas. Municipalities inside counties may reap substantial revenue advantages, possibly incentivizing incorporations or annexations.
Litigation Forecast – Expect challenges where dual taxes were already collected; dispensaries may sue for refunds. Additionally, cities and villages might litigate against counties that continue collection.
Legislative & Electoral Responses – Counties could seek a constitutional amendment or statutory clarification; municipal associations may lobby to keep the status quo. Ballot language for future bans or taxes must now heed the Court’s interpretation.
Administrative Practice – The Department of Revenue must overhaul its rate-notification and compliance systems to ensure county taxes are not misapplied inside incorporated borders.
Interpretive Precedent – The decision strengthens a textualist approach within Missouri, signaling reluctance to rewrite “and”/“or” distinctions absent genuine ambiguity.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Incorporated vs. Unincorporated Area: An incorporated area is within the formal boundaries of a city, town, or village that has its own municipal government. An unincorporated area lies outside any municipality and is governed directly by the county.
Declaratory Judgment: A lawsuit that asks the court to declare the parties’ rights before damages or penalties accrue—here, whether the county could tax.
Summary Judgment: Decision without trial because no material facts are disputed; only legal issues remain.
Plain-Meaning Canon: Courts apply words’ ordinary meanings when the text is clear, avoiding external aids.
Surplusage Canon: Interpretations that render words or phrases meaningless should be avoided.
“En banc”: The full bench of the Supreme Court (all seven judges) decided the case, giving it maximum precedential weight.

5. Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court’s “one-tax, one-jurisdiction” rule stakes out bright lines in the state’s post-legalization tax landscape. By anchoring its analysis in strict textualism, the Court privileged grammatical precision over policy concerns and confirmed that counties and municipalities cannot both impose the 3 % marijuana tax on the same sale. The decision will redirect millions in anticipated revenue, prompt administrative recalibrations, and likely spur political efforts to revisit Article XIV. Beyond cannabis, the ruling underscores the Court’s insistence that constitutional words mean what they say—neither more nor less.