As the Supreme Court prepares to reconvene in September 2025 for its much-anticipated "long conference," Missouri finds itself at the center of two legal battles that could reshape both gun rights and education policy across the state—and perhaps the nation. The outcomes of these cases are poised to send ripples through state and federal relations, testing the boundaries of state sovereignty and federal authority in profound ways.
At the heart of one of these battles is Missouri v. United States, a case that has drawn national attention for its bold challenge to federal gun laws. The dispute centers on the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), a law Missouri lawmakers passed in 2021 as a response to what they saw as federal overreach in gun regulation. According to Nexstar Media, the law's architect, Representative Jered Taylor, compared SAPA to other state policies that withhold cooperation from federal authorities, such as medical marijuana legalization and sanctuary city policies. "The feds use us," Taylor told a St. Louis public radio station in 2021. "They rely on us to enforce their laws. Look at medical marijuana in the state of Missouri. This is exactly what we do with that. It’s exactly what sanctuary cities use."
But SAPA goes far beyond simply withholding state assistance. The law declares that nearly all federal restrictions on gun ownership—including registration, tracking, taxes beyond standard sales tax, and confiscation—are "infringements" and thus invalid within Missouri. It empowers private citizens to sue any political subdivision or law enforcement agency that employs someone who enforces or materially supports federal gun laws, with damages of $50,000 per violation plus legal fees. In effect, SAPA creates a system of private enforcement—sometimes called a "bounty" system—not unlike the controversial Texas law that allowed individuals to sue anyone aiding an abortion, as reported by Nexstar Media.
The Biden administration responded swiftly, suing Missouri in 2022 to block SAPA. The administration argued that SAPA violates the Constitution's supremacy clause, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. The lower courts sided with the federal government, and in 2023, the Supreme Court declined to lift a preliminary injunction against SAPA. Only Justice Clarence Thomas publicly supported Missouri's position, while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch noted that their decision to uphold the injunction was based on its narrow scope.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a decisive blow to SAPA in the summer of 2024. In a succinct 10-page ruling, the court found SAPA unconstitutional, writing, "The ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’ states that certain federal laws are ‘invalid to this state,’ but a State cannot invalidate federal law to itself. Missouri does not seriously contest these bedrock principles of our constitutional structure." The panel further cited the landmark 1819 decision McCulloch v. Maryland, noting, "Missouri has the power to withhold state assistance, but the means it uses to achieve its ends must be ‘consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution.’ Missouri’s assertion that federal laws regulating firearms are ‘invalid to this State’ is inconsistent with both."
Missouri, however, has not backed down. In its petition to the Supreme Court, the state argued that the Eighth Circuit had violated the Tenth Amendment by scrutinizing the legislature's motives for passing SAPA. "Before this case, it appears no federal court had ever blocked a state from exercising Tenth Amendment authority simply because of the reason the state expressed for exercising that authority," Missouri stated. "The Eighth Circuit did that here, striking down a state law solely because the Act said the legislature believes certain federal statutes are unconstitutional." Yet, as Nexstar Media and other outlets have noted, SAPA is not just a statement of opinion—it creates actionable legal mechanisms that actively deter federal law enforcement within the state.
The Justice Department has been clear in its opposition, arguing that SAPA "violates intergovernmental immunity by discriminating against federal employees" and "is preempted because it obstructs the specified federal laws by discouraging federal employees from enforcing them." The department also raised concerns about SAPA's penalties for former federal employees who might later work for Missouri law enforcement agencies, warning that such provisions could have far-reaching consequences.
Interestingly, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a key figure in the state's legal defense of SAPA, was recently appointed as co-deputy director of the FBI by former President Donald Trump. This appointment adds a layer of irony to the legal saga: should SAPA be upheld, Bailey himself could potentially face lawsuits under the law if he were ever to return to Missouri government after his federal service—a scenario that underscores the unpredictable consequences of "government-by-bounty."
While the Supreme Court's ultimate decision on SAPA remains to be seen, legal experts suggest it will have major implications not only for Missouri but also for other states that have adopted similar "Second Amendment Protection Acts." If the justices allow SAPA to stand, it could open the door for states to enact laws that punish federal officials in a variety of policy areas, from gun control to immigration enforcement. As Nexstar Media observed, Democratic-led states might be tempted to use similar tactics to target federal immigration officials for actions taken during previous administrations.
Meanwhile, Missouri is also at the forefront of a heated debate over education funding and parental choice. On August 25, 2025, a Cole County judge denied a request to temporarily block the state's Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Program (MOScholars), allowing $50 million in new school choice funding to proceed. The program, launched in 2021, has already served over 1,000 students and, with the new funding, could offer scholarships to thousands more in the 2025-2026 school year. These scholarships can be used by families to send their children to private schools or cover other educational expenses.
Supporters of the program, including Attorney General Andrew Bailey and State Treasurer Vivek Malek, hailed the ruling as a victory for parents and students—particularly those in disadvantaged communities or struggling school districts. They argue that MOScholars expands opportunities for families whose public schools may not be meeting their needs.
But the program is not without its critics. Led by the Missouri National Education Association, opponents argue that MOScholars diverts much-needed taxpayer dollars away from public schools, which serve the vast majority of Missouri children. They contend that the state's focus should be on strengthening public education, especially in areas already grappling with staffing shortages and limited resources. The lawsuit challenging the program is ongoing, but for now, scholarships already awarded will not be interrupted, as reported by Nexstar Media.
As both cases wind their way through the courts, Missouri stands at a crossroads—caught between the push for greater state autonomy and the enduring pull of federal authority. Whether on guns or schools, the decisions made in the coming months will shape not only the lives of Missourians but could set precedents felt far beyond the state's borders.
