# Americans United v. Rogers

> Supreme Court of Missouri · July 26, 1976 · 538 S.W.2d 711

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680076

## Case

- **Full name:** AMERICANS UNITED, a Corporation, Et Al., Respondents, v. H. Lang ROGERS Et Al., Appellants, and Independent Colleges and Universities of Missouri, Intervenor-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** July 26, 1976
- **Citations:** 538 S.W.2d 711
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Henley
- **Judges:** Morgan, Donnelly, Holman, Finch, Bardgett, Seiler, Henley, Don-Nelly
- **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680076

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding Missouri Constitution requires stricter separation of church and State than does Federal Constitution

## Opinion text

HENLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
Because the principal opinion approves an appropriation of money to assist young people in acquiring a college education, a worthy purpose with strong appeal to all of us, it would be easier to concur than to dissent and thereby hold the line drawn by the people in their constitution.
Section 38(a) of Article III, Constitution of Missouri, provides:
“The general assembly shall have no power to grant public money or property, or lend or authorize the lending of public credit, to any private person, association or corporation, excepting aid in public calamity, and general laws providing for pensions for the blind, for old age assistance, for aid to dependent or crippled children or the blind, for direct relief, for adjusted compensation, bonus or rehabilitation for discharged members of the armed services of the United States who were bona fide residents of this state during their service, and for the rehabili *727 tation of other persons. * * * ” (Emphasis added.)
Despite this command of the constitution, the principal opinion has approved a grant of public money to private persons, needy college students. It does so on the basis that the money appropriated is for the use of these persons in acquiring a higher education, said to be a purpose which the general assembly may, in its legislative discretion, determine to be a “public” purpose. The answer to this is that the people have, by the “exception” clause in § 38(a), determined for themselves and specifically enumerated and limited the purposes for which the general assembly may grant public money to private persons.
It is not enough for the principal opinion to declare that aid to needy students is a “public purpose.” In my opinion, a grant of public money to private persons may be made only for the “purposes” enumerated in the exception clause of § 38(a). A grant to private persons may not be made for any “purpose” other than those enumerated in the exception clause of § 38(a).
For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680076. Public record. Not legal advice.