The Missouri Supreme Court issued a decision Tuesday limiting county authority to impose sales taxes on recreational marijuana, ruling that the state constitution allows only one local government to collect such taxes in any given area.
In *Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al.* (Mo. 2025), the court reversed a St. Louis County Circuit Court judgment that had allowed both counties and municipalities to impose a 3 percent sales tax on non-medical marijuana under article XIV, section 2.6(5) of the Missouri Constitution.
The case arose after Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment in November 2022 legalizing recreational marijuana use for adults 21 and older. The 14,000-word initiative petition, codified as article XIV, section 2 of the state constitution, included provisions allowing local governments to impose sales taxes on cannabis products.
Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC challenged the interpretation that both counties and incorporated municipalities could simultaneously tax cannabis sales in the same geographic area. The dispensary argued that the constitutional language limited taxation authority to prevent double taxation by overlapping jurisdictions.
The circuit court had initially granted summary judgment in favor of St. Louis County and St. Charles County, along with the state director of revenue. Circuit Judge Brian H. May ruled that both counties and incorporated areas within those counties qualified as "local governments" with independent authority to impose the 3 percent tax.
However, the Missouri Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation. Writing for the court, the justices analyzed the plain language of article XIV, section 2, which defines "local government" for taxation purposes. The court held that the constitutional provision limits taxation authority to allow only one local government to impose the 3 percent tax in any given area.
Specifically, the court ruled that in incorporated areas, only a village, town, or city may impose the tax. In unincorporated areas, only the county has that authority. This interpretation prevents overlapping taxation by multiple levels of local government in the same geographic region.
"The plain language of article XIV, section 2 limits the definition of 'local government' to allow only one local government to impose a 3 percent tax—a village, town, or city in an incorporated area, and a county in an unincorporated area," the court wrote.
The decision has immediate implications for cannabis taxation across Missouri. Counties that had been collecting or planning to collect sales taxes on marijuana products in incorporated areas may need to cease those collections or coordinate with municipal governments to avoid conflicts.
For cannabis dispensaries like Robust, the ruling provides clarity on tax obligations and prevents the burden of paying duplicate taxes to overlapping jurisdictions. The decision could also affect local government revenue projections, as counties may lose anticipated tax income from incorporated areas within their boundaries.
The court vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC. The remand allows for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion, potentially including determinations about which specific jurisdictions have taxation authority in particular areas.
This case represents one of the first major judicial interpretations of Missouri's recreational marijuana constitutional amendment since voters approved it in 2022. The decision clarifies a key administrative aspect of cannabis legalization that affects both businesses operating in the industry and local governments seeking to regulate and tax marijuana commerce.
The ruling may prompt legislative or regulatory action to provide additional guidance on cannabis taxation boundaries. Local governments may need to coordinate their taxation policies to ensure compliance with the court's interpretation of constitutional limits.
For the cannabis industry in Missouri, the decision provides important legal clarity about tax obligations. Dispensaries and other marijuana businesses can now operate with greater certainty about which jurisdictions have authority to impose the 3 percent sales tax, reducing compliance costs and legal uncertainty.
The case also demonstrates the ongoing legal challenges surrounding marijuana legalization as courts interpret new constitutional provisions and statutes governing cannabis commerce. As more states legalize recreational marijuana, similar jurisdictional and taxation questions are likely to arise in other jurisdictions.
The Missouri Supreme Court's decision in *Robust* establishes important precedent for cannabis taxation disputes and reinforces the principle that constitutional language should be interpreted according to its plain meaning rather than broader policy objectives.