Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 173
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 173.1550 (2026)

Citation of law

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  173.1550.  Citation of law — expressive activities protected — outdoor areas deemed traditional public forums, reasonable restrictions — court action authorized, when. — 1.  The provisions of this section shall be known and cited as the "Campus Free Expression Act".  Expressive activities protected under the provisions of this section include, but are not limited to, all forms of peaceful assembly, protests, speeches, distribution of literature, carrying signs, and circulating petitions.

  2.  The outdoor areas of campuses of public institutions of higher education in this state shall be deemed traditional public forums.  Public institutions of higher education may maintain and enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions in service of a significant institutional interest only when such restrictions employ clear, published, content, and viewpoint-neutral criteria, and provide for ample alternative means of expression.  Any such restrictions shall allow for members of the university community to spontaneously and contemporaneously assemble.

  3.  Any person who wishes to engage in noncommercial expressive activity on campus shall be permitted to do so freely, as long as the person's conduct is not unlawful and does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the institution subject to the requirements of subsection 2 of this section.

  4.  Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as limiting the right of student expression elsewhere on campus.

  5.  The following persons may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any violation of this section or to recover compensatory damages, reasonable court costs, and attorney fees:

  (1)  The attorney general;

  (2)  Persons whose expressive rights were violated through the violation of this section.

  6.  In an action brought under subsection 5 of this section, if the court finds a violation, the court shall award the aggrieved persons no less than five hundred dollars for the initial violation, plus fifty dollars for each day the violation remains ongoing.

  7.  A person shall be required to bring suit for violation of this section not later than one year after the day the cause of action accrues.  For purposes of calculating the one-year limitation period, each day that the violation persists, and each day that a policy in violation of this section remains in effect, shall constitute a new violation of this section and, therefore, a new day that the cause of action has accrued.

­­--------

(L. 2015 S.B. 93)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Hershey v. City of Springfield, No. 6:21-cv-03255 (W.D. Mo. July 11, 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hershey v. City of Springfield, No. 6:21-cv-03255 (W.D. Mo. July 11, 2022). · cites it 5× “Count IV Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants violated Mo. Rev. Stat. § 173.1550 , which is known as the Campus Free Expression Act in Count IV.”
Reed v. Smart, No. 6:19-cv-03348 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 8, 2020). · cites it 4× “§ 1983 and § 1985, and a claim for violation of Missouri’s Campus Free Expression Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 173.1550 . (Id., pp. 17-18, Count 4; pp.”
Richard Hershey v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri, 719 S.W.3d 915 (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Section 173.1550. Subsection 5 of the statute expressly authorizes a person “whose expressive rights were violated” to bring a cause of action for “any violation” of the CFEA, but does not specify the types of defendants against whom the cause of action may be brought.”
Hershey v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri, No. 2:20-cv-04239 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 13, 2022). “§ 173.1550 provides that: 1. The provisions of this section shall be known and cited as the "Campus Free Expression Act".”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.