House rejects bill to limit judicial deference to administrative agencies

The North Dakota House of Representatives on March 14, 2025, rejected Senate Bill 2,285, a measure that would have limited judicial deference to administrative agencies, with a final vote of 57 nays and 31 yeas.

Proponents said the bill was intended to preserve the legislative branch’s primacy in making law and to ensure judges independently interpret statutes rather than giving special weight to agency interpretations. "What is judicial deference? It is when a judge interprets a statute regulation or rule, the judge is to follow this statute instead of the administrative rule, interpretation of the statute," Representative Vedder said during floor remarks.

Supporters argued the change would restore an even balance between ordinary citizens and agencies. "Do you do you on the side of Goliath? Do you say, hey, you know, the state's always right unless you really, really prove us wrong?" Representative Koppelman asked rhetorically in urging a green vote, framing the bill as protecting individuals who appeal agency actions.

Opponents warned the measure risked creating legal uncertainty and more litigation. Representative Clamine said existing Administrative Agencies Practices Act provisions already require courts to review agency orders for legality and factual support, and she urged members to rely on that framework rather than enact a short, potentially ambiguous statute. Representative Pyle, chair of the Administrative Rules Committee, outlined the committee’s review process and said agencies lack authority to exceed statutory grants.

Lawmakers also debated whether the bill would force courts to make policy in technical fields or simply require judges to examine statutes first. Representative Vetter, who fielded detailed questions from colleagues during the floor exchange, reminded members the bill targeted judicial deference — not rulemaking — and distinguished the roles of the branches: "This bill has nothing to do with making the rule. This has to do with giving deference to the agency's interpretation."

The bill drew a split committee record and substantial floor discussion. Members cited recent federal and state jurisprudence in the debate: supporters noted the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2024 decision overturning Chevron deference on the federal level; opponents pointed to North Dakota case law and the Administrative Agencies Practices Act as the correct vehicle for ensuring agency accountability.

After extended debate, the chamber recorded a final roll-call vote: 31 yeas, 57 nays. The bill failed and will not advance from the House.

The floor exchanges underscored continuing tension in the Legislature over the appropriate balance among the legislative, executive and judicial branches when disputes arise over technical or expert agency determinations. No immediate follow-up motion or study directive was made on the House floor at adjournment.