HJR190 proposes a constitutional amendment adding Section 37 to Article I that restricts the powers of Missouri's state government to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution and declares any action beyond those powers "null and void." The text disallows exercise of powers not "granted or delegated by this Constitution, either expressly or by necessary implication."
This is consequential because it targets the doctrinal foundation for modern administrative delegation and executive action in Missouri. If adopted, the amendment would give courts a clear constitutional hook to invalidate statutes, regulations, agency orders, or executive acts that are viewed as exceeding the Constitution's grants of state power, while leaving several practical questions—about interpretation, enforcement, and the scope of "necessary implication"—unresolved.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds Section 37 to Article I of the Missouri Constitution, stating that state government power is limited to what the Constitution grants and that any power not granted either expressly or by necessary implication is prohibited. It declares acts beyond those powers "null and void."
Who It Affects
State executive agencies, regulatory bodies, and licensing authorities that rely on statutory delegations; the General Assembly as a source of delegated authority; regulated industries and individuals who may challenge administrative actions; and Missouri courts tasked with enforcement.
Why It Matters
The amendment creates a constitutional basis to challenge broad statutory delegations and administrative rules, increasing litigation risk and potentially requiring more specific legislative or constitutional authorizations for governance functions now carried out by agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HJR190 inserts a single new provision — Section 37 — into Article I of the Missouri Constitution. In plain terms, it says the state may exercise only the powers the Constitution itself grants; anything beyond that is forbidden.
The provision explicitly bars any officer, agency, or branch from exercising powers not "granted or delegated by this Constitution," and it adds that actions exceeding those grants are void.
The text does two important things simultaneously. First, it articulates an enumerated-powers rule: government authority must be traceable to the Constitution.
Second, it preserves a qualification—"necessary implication"—that permits some non-explicit powers that the Constitution reasonably requires. Those two formulations pull in different directions: one calls for strict textual enumeration; the other allows implied authority where indispensable.
How courts reconcile that tension will determine whether the amendment functions as a bright-line limit or a more modest interpretive rule.Practically, adoption would change the terrain for administrative law in Missouri. Many agency programs operate because the General Assembly enacts statutes that delegate rulemaking or adjudicatory authority; Section 37 invites challenges that ask whether those delegations themselves comport with the Constitution's grants.
Because the amendment declares unauthorized acts void, plaintiffs can seek judicial invalidation of existing regulations, licensing decisions, fines, or other administrative orders. The measure does not create a new enforcement mechanism or timetable; enforcement will come via ordinary litigation and judicial review.The amendment also raises downstream drafting consequences.
If courts read Section 37 narrowly, the General Assembly and state agencies will need more precise constitutional or statutory hooks for routine functions now covered by broad delegations. If courts read "necessary implication" broadly, many existing practices could survive.
Either way, agencies, regulated parties, and the legislature should expect an initial period of doctrinal development as judges define the boundary between explicit grants and permissible implication.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution adds a new Section 37 to Article I of the Missouri Constitution declaring that state government powers are limited to those granted by the Constitution.
It bars any branch, officer, or agency from exercising power not "granted or delegated by this Constitution, either expressly or by necessary implication.", The amendment declares any act beyond those constitutional grants "null and void," giving courts an explicit constitutional basis to invalidate state action.
The text contains no procedural enforcement mechanism or timetable; enforcement would occur through ordinary lawsuits and judicial review rather than a new administrative process.
The provision contains an internal tension: it speaks of powers "limited solely to those powers explicitly enumerated" while also preserving powers "by necessary implication," leaving scope and test for implication undefined.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Enumerated-powers rule and limiting clause
This is the operative text: it states that the state's powers are "limited solely to those powers explicitly enumerated in this Constitution." That language signals an intent to constrain governmental authority to express constitutional grants. For practitioners, the provision functions as a constitutional rule of construction: when asked whether a branch or agency can act, the inquiry starts with whether the Constitution supplies the authority.
Delegation language and the carve-out for implied authority
Immediately after declaring an enumeration principle, the section adds that no power may be exercised unless it is "granted or delegated by this Constitution, either expressly or by necessary implication." This clause preserves implied powers that are reasonably necessary to carry out constitutional grants, but it leaves the standard for "necessary implication" undefined. That phrase will be the focus of early litigation because it will determine how flexible or rigid the new rule becomes.
Voidness of unauthorized acts
The provision states that any act beyond the Constitution's enumerated powers is "prohibited and shall be deemed null and void." That language supplies a direct constitutional remedy: courts can declare statutes, regulations, agency orders, or executive actions invalid on state-constitutional grounds. The text does not specify retroactivity, saving clauses, or transitional procedures, so judges will confront whether to invalidate past actions or only prospective enforcement.
Interaction with statutory delegations, local government, and federal law
Although the amendment addresses state government powers, it does not mention municipalities or federal supremacy. Challenges will center on whether statutory delegations from the General Assembly to agencies remain permissible under the Constitution's enumerated grants and how courts will treat conflicts with federal law. Because the amendment operates at the state-constitutional level, federal statutes and constitutional requirements remain controlling where preemption applies, but claimants can still seek state-court invalidation of state action under the new provision.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individuals and businesses subject to regulation: They gain a clearer constitutional basis to challenge regulations, licenses, fines, or enforcement actions that cannot be traced to a constitutional grant.
- Litigants and public-interest groups seeking limits on government power: The amendment supplies a direct, text-based avenue to press separation-of-powers and anti-delegation claims in state court.
- Judges and appellate courts: Courts will receive an expanded role in policing the boundary between constitutional grants and modern administrative practice, increasing judicial influence over state governance.
Who Bears the Cost
- State executive agencies and regulators: Agencies that rely on broad legislative delegations for rulemaking and enforcement face increased legal risk and program instability, potentially requiring reauthorization or restructuring.
- The General Assembly and legislative drafters: Lawmakers may have to draft more detailed constitutional provisions or statutes to survive constitutional scrutiny, increasing drafting complexity and legislative workload.
- Missourians who rely on administrative programs: Citizens dependent on licensing, benefit programs, or regulatory enforcement could face disruption if actions are invalidated or agencies pare back operations pending legal clarity.
- State courts and taxpayers: The judiciary will absorb litigation volume and complex interpretive work, and the state may incur higher legal defense and litigation costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preventing unbounded government by insisting on strict, text-based authorization and preserving the practical flexibility the modern state needs to regulate, deliver services, and respond to unforeseen problems; the amendment pushes for the former while leaving the tools to accommodate the latter unclear.
The text packs a lot into a short clause but leaves critical interpretive work to courts. The most immediate implementation question is how judges will reconcile the apparent contradiction between an instruction to limit power "solely" to expressly enumerated grants and the allowance for powers "by necessary implication." A narrow reading of "necessary implication" would sharply curtail delegations and administrative flexibility; a broad reading could preserve much of the status quo and render the amendment largely hortatory.
Other practical gaps matter. The amendment gives no guidance on retroactivity, saving clauses for existing statutes or contracts, or special procedural rules for expedited review.
It also does not address local governments explicitly, yet many municipal functions rely on state enabling statutes. Finally, while the provision creates a state-constitutional cause to invalidate acts, it does not affect federal supremacy; conflicts between federal and state authority will still turn on preemption law, even if state courts strike down state actions on state-constitutional grounds.
All these ambiguities make early litigation—and likely inconsistent rulings—a near certainty, with short-term disruption to regulatory programs and long-term doctrinal development.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.