House approves bill removing judicial deference to agency interpretations in contested cases

The Louisiana House on May 6 passed House Bill 99, a bill that removes any requirement that judges defer to state agencies’ reasonable interpretations of statutes or rules in contested administrative matters. Representative Billings, the bill’s sponsor, framed the change as restoring separation of powers and bringing state practice into alignment with recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that limited judicial deference to agencies.

Billings told the House that the change would require judges, hearing officers and administrative judges to interpret statutes and rules on the merits rather than defaulting to an agency’s view when reasonable arguments exist. He said this “promotes transparency and accountability and legal rigor” by requiring agencies to “show their work” and defend their interpretations on the merits.

Opponents questioned the practical effects on administrative adjudication. Representative Jordan and others warned that eliminating deference could prompt more appeals, duplicate fact-finding and increase costs, asking why the state should maintain an administrative hearing layer if courts will review matters de novo. Billings and supporters replied that courts already review records, and that the bill would force agencies to ground rulemaking and decisions more clearly and rely less on “blanket deference.”

The floor exchange produced extended Q&A on legal doctrine and the functioning of administrative law. After debate the House voted 70 yeas to 27 nays to pass the bill. Supporters said the bill aligns state practice with federal precedent; opponents cautioned increased litigation and administrative workload.