51黑料

ST. LOUIS 鈥� Aldermanic President Megan Green has renewed her efforts to stop the state takeover of the 51黑料 police department, this time without support from city lawyers 鈥� or the city鈥檚 new mayor.

Attorneys for Green filed a new lawsuit Friday in Cole County court, home to the state capital, largely reiterating claims she made in federal court two weeks ago: that the takeover plans abridge her rights to free expression, impose an illegal spending mandate, and violate multiple provisions of the state constitution. It asks a judge to declare the new law enabling the takeover invalid.

Unlike Green鈥檚 last lawsuit, which was filed jointly with the city counselor鈥檚 office on the last day of Mayor Tishaura O. Jones鈥� administration, this one lacked an official endorsement from Mayor Cara Spencer, in week three of her tenure. Green said the city counselor鈥檚 office would not work with her this time.

鈥淚t needs to be done, even if I have to go it alone,鈥� Green said in an interview Friday.

She said her attorneys, Chuck Hatfield of the Stinson law firm, and Brendan Roediger, director of 51黑料 University鈥檚 litigation clinic, are taking on the case pro bono. Roediger is representing Green in his personal capacity, not as a SLU employee.

Spencer said Green did not tell her about the lawsuit, and criticized the move in a statement Friday afternoon, noting that the first lawsuit Green filed contained technical errors that drew a judge鈥檚 rebuke.

鈥淲hile I continue to believe local voters should have control over local police departments, we have seen what rushing into lawsuits results in,鈥� Spencer said in a statement. 鈥淧resident Megan Green may want to file a new lawsuit, but it would be better for the City to present a united front and give the City Counselor鈥檚 Office adequate time to fully develop the City鈥檚 case rather than taking another premature stab at it.鈥�

The Missouri Attorney General鈥檚 Office did not respond to a request for comment.

The back-and-forth over the lawsuit marks the latest tension between two of the city鈥檚 top officials. They鈥檝e already been at odds on development policy and how to handle a city manager proposal. And nearly three weeks into the Spencer administration, they have yet to get on the same page on how the city should handle one of the biggest changes to the police department since City Hall took it over in 2013, 150 years after the first state takeover.

Both Spencer and Green have said they support local control, where the mayor and aldermen make policy for the department rather than a board largely picked by the governor.

But they have clashed on how exactly to fight the new takeover law approved in Jefferson City in March. Spencer expressed irritation after Green and the Jones administration filed the original lawsuit without involving her in the planning. And after a federal judge pointed out technical errors in the suit and ordered it dismissed, Spencer and Green couldn鈥檛 agree on how to proceed with a new one.

Spencer said a week and a half ago that her team was weighing the merits of filing a 鈥渟ound suit鈥� in state court.

But Green, concerned about letting the takeover progress too far, said she planned to refile as soon as possible. And on Friday, she did.

She said the city needs clarity on the spending mandate as it considers its next budget, which takes effect in July. She said a board appointed by the state鈥檚 Republican governor could mean trouble for residents concerned about overpolicing, immigrants concerned about mass deportations, women seeking abortions and transgender people seeking health care.

鈥淕overnment needs to be stepping up to challenge unjust laws imposed on us,鈥� she said.

She also added some new arguments to Friday鈥檚 lawsuit, which names the state of Missouri and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey. In addition to arguments about an illegal spending mandate and First Amendment rights, the lawsuit says the new takeover law violates a Missouri constitutional provision requiring bills passed through the legislature to have one single subject filed under a clearly expressed title. It is also a special law that only applies to one city, the suit argues.