House Judiciary hears divided testimony on bill to bar judicial deference to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes

The House Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony on Senate Bill 2285 on the effect of judicial deference to administrative agencies. Sponsor Sen. Claire Corey told the committee the bill would make judges “follow the statute rather than deferring to the agency to conduct their interpretation.”

The bill would direct judges and administrative law judges to consult the statute first and only then consider agency rules or interpretations when resolving ambiguous statutory language. Proponents said the change restores separation of powers after the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo.

Jackie Hall, executive director of the North Dakota Association for Justice, said the U.S. Supreme Court “finally and empathetically overruled Chevron deference” and argued states should ensure courts — not agencies — resolve questions of law. “The legislature creates the statutes, and they are law,” Hall said, urging a “due pass” for the bill.

Supporters included James Manley, state policy chief for the Pacific Legal Foundation, who framed the bill as a separation‑of‑powers measure, and Brad Peterson of Protection & Advocacy, who described repeated administrative rulings that he said could be hard to overturn under deference doctrines.

Opponents included several statewide agency officials who said the bill, as written, would reduce the ability of technically specialized agencies to apply expertise in fields such as energy, environment and medicine. North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring warned the measure could “diminish the ability for state agencies to carry out the will and intention of the legislature,” citing regulatory complexity and public‑comment rulemaking. Randy Christman, chair of the Public Service Commission, urged an exemption for constitutional agencies that regulate complex utilities matters, saying those proceedings allow public participation that a courtroom review may not replicate.

Sandra DuPentes, executive director of the North Dakota Board of Medicine, described disciplinary and medical‑standard determinations as “highly technical” and said the board and its administrative law judges rely on subject‑matter expertise when resolving licensing and standard‑of‑care disputes.

Nathan Anderson, director of the Department of Mineral Resources, proposed a narrowing amendment to limit the bar on deference to situations involving an "ambiguous statute, regulation or rule." The attorney general’s general counsel later told the committee the governor’s office was neutral on the bill as written and supported Anderson’s amendment as a narrowing change.

Witnesses and committee members referenced North Dakota cases in which courts reviewed agency actions; the bill does not create an automatic exclusion of agency rules but would change the order of legal inquiry so statute interpretation is primary and agency interpretation is secondary.

No formal action or vote on the bill was recorded at the hearing. Committee members and agency representatives acknowledged outstanding questions about how the change would apply to constitutionally created agencies, technical adjudications and administrative rules review.

Ending: Committee members closed the record after additional testimony from state agencies and advocacy groups and moved on to the next scheduled bills.