Avatar feed
Responses: 1
SGT Unit Supply Specialist
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."The bill wound up being described as "relating to local government."

The Supreme Court rejected that argument too. The question, Wilson wrote, is not whether the title is broad.

"It plainly is," Wilson wrote.

He went on: "Rather, the question is whether this title is so broad that it fails to provide clear notice to legislators or interested citizens as to the bill's contents. It is not."

Wilson wrote the bill is "sufficiently clear" to give a legislator or citizen interested in tracking CAFO legislation notice "that they may want to examine its contents and track its progress."

At the very least, Jeffery argued last year, the 2019 and 2021 state laws shouldn't apply to counties with existing CAFO ordinances. He said it should only prohibit new ones.

The Supreme Court rejected that, saying any ordinance in conflict with the two state laws "is void from and after the effective date of the 2021 amendment, regardless of when the ordinance was adopted."

This story may be updated.

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence."...
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.