Missouri Supreme Court
JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Supreme Court has sided with Robust Missouri Dispensary 3 in a closely watched case involving the scope of local taxation under the state’s recreational marijuana amendment, ruling that counties cannot impose a 3% sales tax on non-medical marijuana sold within incorporated cities, towns or villages.
In a decision written by Judge Mary R. Russell, the court vacated a lower court ruling that had favored St. Louis and St. Charles Counties. Justice Zel Fischer dissented and authored a separate opinion.
The justices concluded that the Missouri Constitution, as amended by voters in November 2022, authorizes only one “local government” to impose the tax — and that authority depends on whether the dispensary is located in an incorporated or unincorporated area.
The case arose after Robust, which operates a dispensary in Florissant, an incorporated city within St. Louis County, refused to remit a second 3% sales tax to the county, asserting that only Florissant was authorized to impose such a tax.
The Missouri Department of Revenue sent Robust a notice stating the business was required to collect and remit the county’s tax in addition to the city’s, prompting Robust to seek declaratory and injunctive relief in court.
The constitutional amendment approved by voters — codified in Article XIV, section 2 — permits local governments to impose an additional 3 percent sales tax on recreational marijuana sales upon voter approval. It defines “local government” as “in the case of an incorporated area, a village, town or city and, in the case of an unincorporated area, a county.”
St. Louis County and St. Charles County had argued the provision permitted both a county and an incorporated municipality within it to impose the tax simultaneously.
The counties pointed to language in the amendment referring to “any local government” and “such political subdivision” as support for their interpretation.
But the Supreme Court rejected that view, emphasizing the constitutional language sets up “two distinct, mutually exclusive scenarios.”
The opinion stated that “if a marijuana dispensary is located in an incorporated area, that village, town, or city is the only local government that may institute the 3 percent tax.”
Likewise, “if the dispensary is located in an unincorporated area, then the county is the only local government authorized” to do so, it states.
The justices faulted the circuit court for reasoning that counties must be included in the definition of “local government” in incorporated areas to preserve their ability to enforce ordinances related to public health.
That interpretation, the high court said, strayed from the plain language of the Constitution.
In its ruling, the Court also clarified that references to “ordinances and regulations” in Article XIV, section 2 pertain solely to marijuana-related matters and do not limit a county’s broader authority to pass and enforce other laws, including those related to health and safety.
Thus, counties are not stripped of regulatory power — they are merely restricted from imposing a marijuana-specific sales tax within incorporated cities or towns.
The court also addressed arguments raised in a dissenting opinion, which asserted the plain language interpretation of “local government” could mislead voters and render parts of the ballot language superfluous. The majority rejected that claim, explaining the constitutional text clearly intended to limit tax authority based on whether a dispensary’s location was incorporated or unincorporated.
The ruling concludes that St. Louis County and other counties may not collect the 3 percent tax from dispensaries located within incorporated municipalities. While counties remain free to enforce the tax in unincorporated areas, any attempt to double-tax consumers in cities or towns where a separate municipal tax already applies is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the circuit court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Robust Missouri Dispensary 3 and conduct any further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Fischer dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the Missouri Constitution clearly allows counties to impose a 3% sales tax on recreational marijuana in both incorporated and unincorporated areas.
He pointed to Article XIV, § 2.2(12) which he said defines “local government” using the word “and,” which he interprets to include both counties and cities in their respective areas, not limit them to mutually exclusive jurisdictions.
Fischer criticized the majority for effectively rewriting the Constitution by treating “and” as “or,” leading to confusion and potential public health risks.
He warned that the majority's interpretation could prevent counties from enforcing marijuana-related health and safety ordinances in incorporated areas.
Fischer also noted that the ballot language provided in the Constitution implies counties can act in both incorporated and unincorporated areas. He concluded the lower court correctly upheld the counties’ authority to collect the tax and would have affirmed the judgment in full.
Missouri Supreme Court case number: SC100898
