Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate bill to require de novo review of agency interpretations draws mixed testimony
Loading...
Summary
Senator Nick Schroer presented Senate Bill 221 to require courts to interpret agency rules and statutes de novo and to resolve lingering ambiguity in favor of limiting agency power; supporters called it a restoration of checks and balances and critics urged more work and caution.
Senator Nick Schroer (Senate District 2) described Senate Bill 221 in a public hearing before the House Judiciary Committee as a proposal to require de novo judicial review of state agencies’ interpretations of statutes, rules and subregulatory documents.
Schroer said the bill would require courts and administrative hearing officers to interpret legal texts anew without deferring to an agency’s prior interpretation; if ambiguity persisted after conventional interpretive methods, the bill would direct courts to adopt interpretations that limit agency power and maximize individual liberty. He framed the proposal as restoring separation of powers and aligning Missouri with states that have moved away from judicial deference.
Supporters who testified included Matthew Smith (identified in the record as representing Associate Industries), who said, “We believe that agencies shouldn't have the power to, just defer or that the court shouldn't defer to agencies when there's ambiguity in statute, and we think that this is gonna provide a better system for, in judicial review.” Camille (identified as representing Americans for Prosperity) also went on record in support, calling the change a strengthening of checks and balances.
Arnie C. (identified in the record as State Public Advocate) testified that he generally supports the concept of reducing deference but urged more discussion and work on the legislation before it advances; he said he was “not sure that this bill is ready for prime time” but supported the overall principle.
Committee members asked practical questions. Representative Tyson Smith asked whether de novo review would require courts to duplicate fact-finding (for example, medical evidence in benefit-denial cases). Schroer and witnesses clarified that the bill is intended to focus on questions of law and statutory interpretation; agencies would remain the fact-finders for evidence-intensive determinations while courts would review legal issues de novo.
No formal committee action was recorded during the public hearing portion contained in the transcript.
