House Judiciary Committee advances bill limiting judicial deference to agencies

At a House Judiciary Committee meeting, members voted 8-6 to recommend passage of Senate Bill 2285, a proposal that would restrict courts from deferring to administrative agencies’ interpretations of statutes in some cases.

The bill drew substantial debate over whether judges should be required to find a statute “unambiguous” before declining to defer to an agency. Representative Twite moved an amendment to insert the word “unambiguous” into the statutory language. "Mister chairman, I would move the amendment as proposed," Twite said when offering the change. The amendment was seconded by Representative Van Winkle but failed on a roll call, 4 to 10.

Opponents said the amendment, and aspects of the bill, would undercut existing administrative processes. "I'm a no on this amendment. I think if we do this, the whole bill itself is pretty meaningless," Representative Olsen said. Representative Better also opposed the amendment and said she would not support it after being told the sponsor had been consulted: "When I asked the person presenting the amendment if he had talked to the sponsor, he said yes, and that is not true. And so therefore, I am not going to... support their amendment."

Supporters argued the bill addresses problems with judicial practice. Representative Vedder, who said he serves on the Administrative Rules Committee, warned the measure concerns the court process more than the administrative rules process: "This has to do with the court process, not the administrative rules."

After the amendment failed, Representative Hoverson moved a "do pass" recommendation; Representative Wolff seconded. The committee took a roll call on the motion and the "do pass" recommendation carried 8 to 6. The committee selected Representative Vetter to carry the bill forward.

The debate repeatedly contrasted the administrative rules review process — including public notice and Attorney General review — with the judicial standards for statutory interpretation. Committee members expressed divergent views about whether the bill would invite litigation or correct judicial overreach. Representative Satrim warned of potential litigation and economic consequences, saying the proposal could "open up a floodgate of, lawsuits" and "could derail some of our industries." Representative Schneider, citing testimony, described the proposal as originating from outside the state and noted limited in-state support.

No changes to statutory citations or further amendments were recorded in the committee minutes; the bill proceeds with a committee "do pass" recommendation to the next stage.

Ending: The committee’s action sends SB 2285 forward with a narrow majority recommendation; sponsors and opponents indicated ongoing disagreement over the scope of judicial review and the roles of courts and agencies.