On the contrary--it looks like conservative interpretation of existing law. The Hancock Amendment says "no unfunded mandates," and that means no unfunded mandates. Legislators should either have permitted the use of the $100 fee to cover all costs of implementation, or they should have allocated additional funding to cover those costs. Any other interpretation of the amendment would be selective application--judicial activism, if you will. Courts should follow the law as written.
Fix the law. It doesn't appear that the Missouri SC is particularly interested in finding a non-existant prohibition againsts CC in the Missouri constitution. Not this go-round, at least.