## Facts

- Three Missouri taxpayers sued state officials and the Missouri Gaming Commission to stop licensing of gambling “floating facilities” placed in artificial basins filled with Missouri River water.
- The basins were not contiguous to the Missouri River, though located within 1,000 feet of the river’s main channel.
- The suit sought declaratory relief that Article III, § 39(e) (1994 voter-approved amendment) limited permissible gambling locations to the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
- State officials and intervenors (including a riverboat gaming association, a municipality, and gaming corporations) relied on a statute defining the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers to include certain artificial spaces near the main channel.
- The circuit court upheld the statute’s expansive definition and dismissed the taxpayers’ petition, while issuing a memorandum that declared the parties’ rights.
- The taxpayers appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Missouri because the case involved the validity of a statute under the Missouri Constitution.

## Issues

1. Whether dismissal was proper where the circuit court effectively issued a declaration of rights in a declaratory judgment action.
2. Whether Article III, § 39(e) authorizes gambling only when the excursion gambling boat or floating facility is physically over and in contact with the surface of the Missouri or Mississippi River, excluding noncontiguous artificial basins filled with river water.
3. Whether the General Assembly may, by statute, expand the constitutional terms “Missouri River” and “Mississippi River” to include artificial spaces for purposes of authorizing gaming.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed and remanded.
- The court held Article III, § 39(e) permits gambling only on excursion gambling boats and floating facilities that are over and in physical contact with the surface of the Missouri or Mississippi River.
- Artificial basins not on the river surface—even if filled with river water and near the river—do not satisfy the constitutional requirement.
- The statutory definition purporting to treat such artificial spaces as part of the rivers could not enlarge the constitution’s limited authorization.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional language adopted by voters is interpreted according to its plain and ordinary meaning as understood at adoption.
- The word “only” in a constitutional grant of authority operates as an exclusive limitation on legislative power.
- “Upon” in the phrase “only upon the Mississippi River and the Missouri River” requires actual physical placement on, and contact with, the natural river surface.
- “River” refers to the natural watercourse; the legislature cannot redefine constitutional geographic terms by statute to expand the scope of a constitutional authorization.
- The 1994 amendment did not authorize land-based casino gambling; gaming remains unauthorized outside the locations and conditions stated in Article III, § 39(e).

## Conclusion

Missouri’s constitution permits gaming only on qualifying boats or floating facilities physically on the Missouri or Mississippi River; the legislature and the Gaming Commission cannot extend that authority to noncontiguous, land-cut artificial basins by statutory definition.


Akin v. Mo. Gaming Comm’n, 956 S.W.2d 261 (Mo. 1997)