Missouri AG Sues Kansas City Over Race- and Sex-Based Contracting Program

On July 22, 2026, Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Kansas City, Missouri, challenging the city’s longstanding Minority and Women Business Enterprise (MWBE) program as unconstitutional. The AG filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri alongside private plaintiffs Charles Cacioppo Jr. and his company, Industrial Salvage and Wrecking Co.

The lawsuit marks the latest in a national wave of state-level challenges to race- and sex-conscious public contracting programs.

Background: Kansas City’s MWBE Program

Kansas City adopted its Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise Program in 1996. Under the MWBE ordinance, Kansas City has set citywide annual goals for the participation of minority business enterprises (MBE) and women business enterprises (WBE) in all contracts that Kansas City enters into each year. Each year, the director of the Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity Department (CREO) for the City of Kansas City sets goals for individual contracts that bidders must satisfy, including by submitting a notarized contractor utilization plan detailing the MBEs and WBEs that will participate in the contract, the work they will perform, and the amounts each will be paid.

A key development giving rise to the litigation is Kansas City’s 2026 disparity study. Kansas City retained the consulting firm Griffin and Strong to conduct the study, which was presented to the city council in May 2026. According to the complaint, Griffin and Strong’s results and recommendation were that Kansas City does not have a factual basis to continue contracting on the basis of race and sex, and that the city should instead utilize a race- and sex-neutral small business program. The complaint further alleges that, upon information and belief, Kansas City has continued to operate its MWBE program despite the study having been presented to the city council.

The Complaint

The complaint asserts five distinct claims:

• Claim 1: Unlawful Race Discrimination (Fourteenth Amendment, on behalf of Missouri): The State alleges that Kansas City’s MWBE ordinance, policy, and practice treat businesses differently based on the race of their owners — for example, disadvantaging white-owned businesses — and that, because the ordinance grants preferences based on race, it must satisfy strict scrutiny, a standard the State contends Kansas City cannot meet.
• Claim 2: Unlawful Race Discrimination (Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on behalf of Cacioppo and Industrial Wrecking): The individual plaintiffs allege that Kansas City’s MWBE ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause and Section 1983 by unlawfully considering race when evaluating bids, specifically disadvantaging Industrial Wrecking because Cacioppo is white.
• Claim 3: Unlawful Sex Discrimination (Fourteenth Amendment, on behalf of Missouri): The State alleges that Kansas City’s MWBE ordinance constitutes sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause by favoring women over men when awarding government contracts, and that Kansas City lacks a legitimate interest sufficient to justify its sex-based classification.
• Claim 4: Unlawful Sex Discrimination (Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on behalf of Cacioppo and Industrial Wrecking): The individual plaintiffs allege that Kansas City unlawfully considered sex when evaluating their contract bids, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Claim 5: Discriminatory Contracting Impairment (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, on behalf of Cacioppo and Industrial Wrecking): The individual plaintiffs allege that Kansas City has interfered with, and continues to interfere with, Cacioppo’s and Industrial Wrecking’s right to make and enforce contracts with the city because of its alleged intent to discriminate against persons based on their race or color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

AG Hanaway’s Statements

Attorney General Hanaway released a public statement accompanying the filing. “Kansas Citians deserve a system based on fairness, merit, and equal treatment, not one that sorts people and spends taxpayer dollars based on race or sex,” Hanaway said. “The City’s unlawful quotas violate the core promise of equal protection under the law, shut out qualified businesses, and deny hardworking Missourians the chance to compete on a level playing field.” The AG’s office pointed to the 2026 disparity study’s findings as central to the legal challenge, noting that the city’s own commissioned study recommended transitioning to a race- and sex-neutral program — a recommendation the city had not acted upon at the time of filing.

Kansas City’s Response

Mayor Quinton Lucas responded publicly to the lawsuit and indicated the city intends to contest the claims in court. “I had much hope that Missouri finally had an Attorney General committed to fighting human trafficking, eliminating elder abuse, and protecting Missouri's seniors from fraudsters. Unfortunately, we still do not, as our new Attorney General takes part in yet another culture war issue,” Lucas said. The mayor characterized the lawsuit as a political exercise and questioned whether resources devoted to the litigation would be better directed elsewhere, stating: “Our lawyers will handle it. The people of Missouri and Kansas City will lose, as talented young lawyers in her office spend their time on another political stunt rather than the safety of Missourians.”

The case is currently pending before Judge Greg Kays in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Defendants were served but have not filed a response to the complaint.

For municipalities, the Missouri AG’s action highlights an important risk: government-commissioned disparity studies are not without risk and may become the centerpiece of a constitutional challenge rather than a shield against one. As state attorneys general increasingly bring or join these suits alongside private plaintiffs, local governments operating race- or sex-conscious contracting programs should proactively assess whether their legal foundations can withstand the heightened scrutiny that courts now apply in the wake of recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

If you have questions regarding how this lawsuit or similar state AG enforcement trends may affect your organization, please contact our State Attorneys General Practice.