Missouri Capitol Building, Jefferson City, Missouri [2023 file photo]
The 2026 Regular Session of the Missouri General Assembly convenes in Jefferson City on January 7th. Bill prefiling for the session started on December 1, 2024.
1046 bills were prefiled.
==========
Hardy Billington (r) [2022 file photo].
A bill in search of a problem:
HB 1607 Modifies guidelines for student participation in athletic contests organized by sex
Sponsor: Billington, Hardy (152)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2026
LR Number: 5106H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2025 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1607
[….]
The summary:
HB 1607– PARTICIPATION IN ATHLETICS COMPETITIONS
SPONSOR: BillingtonCurrently, schools are only allowed to let a student compete in an athletics competition designated for the biological sex of the student, as stated on the student’s official birth certificate, with the exception that female students can participate in competitions designated for male students if there is no corresponding athletics competition designed for female students available. This provision is set to expire on August 28th, 2027.
The bill removes the expiration date.
This bill is similar to HB 36 (2025).
Make it make sense.
==========
HB 1608 Modifies provisions relating to gender transition procedures
Sponsor: Billington, Hardy (152)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2026
LR Number: 5076H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2025 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1608
[….]
The summary:
HB 1608– GENDER TRANSITION PROCEDURES
SPONSOR: BillingtonCurrently, a health care provider must not knowingly prescribe or administer cross-sex hormones or puberty blocking drugs for the purpose of a gender transition for any individual under 18 years of age. This prohibition is set to expire on August 28, 2027.
The bill repeals the expiration clause so that the prohibition will remain in effect.
This bill is similar to HB 1016 (2025).
This is some kind of crisis?
==========
HB 1609 Enacts provisions governing flags displayed in public school classrooms
Sponsor: Billington, Hardy (152)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2026
LR Number: 5109H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2025 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1609
[….]
The summary:
HB 1609– FLAGS IN CLASSROOMS
SPONSOR: BillingtonThis bill authorizes public schools to fly the flag of The United States, the Missouri State flag, the POW/MIA flag, or the school flag and restricts public schools from flying any other flag.
This bill is similar to HB 1398 (2025).
A few of our suggestions for school flags:
Heh.
==========
HB 1610 Lowers the statute of limitations for certain actions
Sponsor: Billington, Hardy (152)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2026
LR Number: 5052H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2025 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1610
[….]
Do tell.
The summary.
HB 1610– STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS
SPONSOR: BillingtonThis bill decreases the statute of limitation on certain actions from five years to three years. Such actions include all actions for contracts, with some exceptions; actions for a liability, other than a penalty or forfeiture, created by statute; actions for trespass on real estate; actions for taking, detaining, or injuring any goods or chattels; and actions for relief on the ground of fraud.
This bill is similar to HB 41 (2025) and HB 1404 (2024).
Donald Trump (r) comes to mind.
==========
Pray tell.
HB 1612 Requires school districts to display the Ten Commandments in each building and classroom in the school district
Sponsor: Billington, Hardy (152)Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2026
LR Number: 5110H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2025 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1612
[….]
Which version?
The summary:
HB 1612– THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN SCHOOLS
SPONSOR: BillingtonThis bill requires that beginning January 1, 2027, school districts and charter schools must display the Ten Commandments in each building and classroom.
The bill provides specific criteria for the posting of the Ten Commandments and authorizes the use of public funds to purchase such displays. However, the
school board or governing board is not required to spend the board’s moneys to purchase the displays.This bill is similar to HB 34 (2025).
The version in the bill:
[….]
171.022. 1. As used in this section, “Ten Commandments” means the following text:“The Ten Commandments
I AM the LORD thy God.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.”
Well, god damn, it’s a good thing the Chiefs are moving to Kansas.
Again, Donald Trump (r) comes to mind.
Chaser:
[….]
Sydell STONE et al.
v.
James B. GRAHAM, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Kentucky.No. 80-321.
Nov. 17, 1980.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1981.
See 449 U.S. 1104, 101 S.Ct. 904.PER CURIAM.
A Kentucky statute requires the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public classroom in the State.1 Petitioners, claiming that this statute violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment,2 sought an injunction against its enforcement. The state trial court upheld the statute, finding that its “avowed purpose” was “secular and not religious,” and that the statute would “neither advance nor inhibit any religion or religious group” nor involve the State excessively in religious matters. App. to Pet. for Cert. 38-39. The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky affirmed by an equally divided court. 599 S.W.2d 157 (1980). We reverse.
This Court has announced a three-part test for determining whether a challenged state statute is permissible under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution:
“First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion . . .; finally the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’ ” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971) (citations omitted).
If a statute violates any of these three principles, it must be struck down under the Establishment Clause. We conclude that Kentucky’s statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schoolrooms had no secular legislative purpose, and is therefore unconstitutional.
The Commonwealth insists that the statute in question serves a secular legislative purpose, observing that the legislature required the following notation in small print at the bottom of each display of the Ten Commandments: “The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.” 1978 Ky. Acts, ch. 436, § 1 (effective June 17, 1978), Ky.Rev.Stat. § 158.178 (1980).
The trial court found the “avowed” purpose of the statute to be secular, even as it labeled the statutory declaration “self-serving.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 37. Under this Court’s rulings, however, such an “avowed” secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. In Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963), this Court held unconstitutional the daily reading of Bible verses and the Lord’s Prayer in the public schools, despite the school district’s assertion of such secular purposes as “the promotion of moral values, the contradiction to the materialistic trends of our times, the perpetuation of our institutions and the teaching of literature.” Id., at 223, 83 S.Ct., at 1572.
The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths,3 and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one’s parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. See Exodus 20: 12-17; Deuteronomy 5: 16-21. Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord’s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day. See Exodus 20: 1-11; Deuteronomy 5: 6-15.
This is not a case in which the Ten Commandments are integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like. Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 225, 83 S.Ct., at 1573. Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational function. If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.
It does not matter that the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are financed by voluntary private contributions, for the mere posting of the copies under the auspices of the legislature provides the “official support of the State . . . Government” that the Establishment Clause prohibits. 374 U.S., at 222, 83 S.Ct., at 1571; see Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 1267, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962).4 Nor is it significant that the Bible verses involved in this case are merely posted on the wall, rather than read aloud as in Schempp and Engel, for “it is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment.” Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 225, 83 S.Ct., at 1573. We conclude that§ 158.178 (1980) violates the first part of the Lemon v. Kurtzman, test, and thus the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.5
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment below is reversed.
It is so ordered.
[….]
Forty-Five years ago.
