Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects bill that would prioritize legislative intent over agency deference
Summary
House Bill 52, which would reduce judicial deference to agency interpretations and increase publication requirements for settlements, failed second reading on a 37‑63 vote after members warned the measure would expand use of legislative intent in statutory interpretation and shift venue for some cases.
Representative Deming introduced House Bill 52, a proposed revision to the Montana Administrative Procedure Act that would, among other changes, direct courts to prioritize legislative intent over agency interpretations and require publication of settlement stipulations on the state website.
During floor debate Deming said the bill ‘‘attempts to prevent judicial deference to agency interpretations, prioritizes legislative intent, and increases transparency in state government actions.’’ He argued courts should interpret law ‘‘independently without bias towards state and federal agencies’’ and that searchable publication of settlements would increase public transparency.
Opponents warned the bill would invite courts to rely on legislative history rather than statutory text and could strip local district courts of jurisdiction where agencies maintain their principal office. Representative Mercer said Montana case law prioritizes statutory text and warned that introducing ‘‘legislative intent’’ as a standard risks departing from plain‑language review. Representative Close flagged a change that would remove the provision allowing cases to be filed where an agency maintains its principal office, potentially forcing district courts that rarely see these questions to handle administrative rule disputes.
The motion to recommend the bill do pass failed on second reading by a vote of 37 ayes and 63 noes.
Why it matters: the bill would have changed the standard by which Montana courts review agency rules and interpretations, and it prompted concerns about shifting venue and opening courts to legislative‑history arguments. The vote reflects significant opposition among members who prefer established plain‑language statutory interpretation.
