ST. LOUIS — In a decisive legal ruling, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment that Gov. Michael L. Parson has the exclusive authority to appoint a replacement for the position of St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney.
The decision settles a contentious dispute between the state and St. Louis County officials over who holds the power to fill the vacancy.
The vacancy arose following the election of the current prosecuting attorney to the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2024.
The prosecutor resigned earlier in January.
Because of this, both the county executive, Dr. Sam Page, and the governor claimed authority to appoint a replacement.
The disagreement led the state to file a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment affirming the governor’s sole authority to make the appointment, as outlined in Missouri’s constitution and statutes.
The circuit court had ruled in favor of the state, prompting St. Louis County to appeal the decision.
The Missouri Supreme Court, reviewing the case on stipulated facts, conducted a de novo analysis to determine whether the governor or county executive had the legal right to appoint the new prosecuting attorney.
The state relied on Article IV, Section 4 of the Missouri Constitution, which grants the governor authority to fill public office vacancies unless otherwise provided by law.
Section 105.050 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri specifies that the governor must appoint a “competent person” to fill any prosecuting attorney vacancy until the next regular election.
However, the county cited Section 5.050 of its charter, which states that such vacancies should be filled by the county executive, subject to council confirmation.
The county argued that under Article VI, Section 18(b) of the Missouri Constitution, charter counties are empowered to determine the manner of selection of county officers, including the prosecuting attorney.
The court’s analysis centered on whether the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney is a “county officer” as defined in the constitution.
Decades of Missouri case law and statutory provisions supported the conclusion that prosecuting attorneys perform essential state functions.
Prosecuting attorneys represent the state in criminal actions and are integral to maintaining law and order.
Justice John P. Torbitzky, writing for the court, emphasized that the prosecuting attorney is primarily a state officer tasked with enforcing state laws.
While some duties may involve county matters, the prosecutor’s overarching responsibility is to represent the people of Missouri in criminal proceedings.
This distinction placed the position firmly within the purview of state governance, overriding any conflicting provisions in the county charter.
The ruling reaffirmed that counties, even those operating under charter governance, remain legal subdivisions of the state and are subject to constitutional and statutory directives.
As such, the county’s charter provision regarding the appointment process could not supersede state law.
“The language of the Missouri Constitution and statutes leads this Court to the inescapable conclusion that the prosecuting attorney performs essential state governmental functions,” the ruling stated.
Consequently, the governor retains the authority to appoint a successor under Section 105.050 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.
The appellants were represented by Dana Tucker Redwing, Neal F. Perryman, Michael L. Jente and Daniel C. Carter
The respondents were represented by Andrew J. Crane.
Attorneys did not respond to requests for comment.
Melissa Price Smith was sworn in on Jan. 3.
“This office belongs to all of us,” Smith said after the swearing-in ceremony. “I do not want my name over the door, because it's all of our office. The door is going to say prosecuting attorney's office, not Melissa Price Smith's office … because we're all working together on this.”
Price Smith will serve the remainder of Wesley Bell’s term, which ends Jan. 1, 2027.
Bell resigned to serve as the representative for Missouri’s 1st Congressional District.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED113210