Case: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Missouri State Conference v. Kehoe

This case concerns the authority of the Governor of Missouri to call a special legislative session to redraw the state's congressional map. On August 29, 2025, Governor Kehoe issued a Press Release announcing a Proclamation convening an extraordinary session of the legislature under Article IV, Section 9 for the purpose of enacting legislation establishing revised congressional districts and amending the state’s initiative petition process. The Proclamation convened the state legislature to enact legislation to establish new congressional districts for the State of Missouri and to enact legislation to adjust various rules for statewide ballot measures. The U.S. Census Bureau has not issued new apportionment calculations since April 2021, and the congressional boundaries derived from that apportionment cycle went into effect in 2022.

On September 3, 2025, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Missouri State Conference (NAACP MO), and two individuals (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed this lawsuit in Missouri Circuit Court. Plaintiffs sued Governor Michael Kehoe (in his official capacity as Governor), Attorney General Andrew Bailey (in his official capacity as Attorney General), State Senator and President Pro Tem of the Senate Cindy O'Laughline (in her official capacity in those roles), and State Representative and Speaker of the House Jon Patterson (in his official capacity in those roles). Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated Article IV, Section 9 of the Missouri Constitution, contending that the Governor's proclamation failed to state an "extraordinary occasion" as required to convene an emergency legislative session. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state legislature from being called into session. The case was assigned to Judge Christopher Kirby Limbaugh.

Shortly thereafter, on September 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, seeking immediate relief as Defendants were convening a special session of the legislature. On September 14, 2025, Defendants filed their objection to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and concurrently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the motion was moot because the General Assembly had adjourned, Plaintiffs did not have standing, Plaintiffs' challenge was nonjusticiable under Missouri's political question doctrine, and the Governor has unreviewable discretion to call a special session under Article IV, Section 9 of the Missouri Constitution. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, adding the State of Missouri as a defendant. On September 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss, arguing that it should be denied because Plaintiffs have standing and the judiciary has exclusive jurisdiction to rule on the constitutional limitations of the Governor's and General Assembly's authority.

On October 31, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Defendants' motion to dismiss remained under consideration.

On December 15, 2025, the Court held a trial on Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

On February 13, 2026, the Court entered final judgment in favor of Defendants and denied Plaintiffs' request for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The sole issue before the Court was whether the Governor had constitutional authority under Article IV, Section 9 of the Missouri Constitution to call an extraordinary session of the General Assembly—an issue of first impression in Missouri. The Court reasoned that the Governor has the constitutional discretion to determine what constitutes an "extraordinary" occasion for purposes of the provision, to decide whether to proclaim an extraordinary session of the legislature, and to decide what action is deemed necessary to address it. The Court further concluded that this issue presents a political question to be determined by the sitting Governor, not the courts.

On February 27, 2026, Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri.  As of March 2026, the appeal is pending and the case remains ongoing.