House Bill 52 would require courts to interpret agency law without deference; debate centered on Chevron, technical expertise and unintended consequences

Representative Lee Deming opened House Bill 52 as a measure to prevent judicial deference to agency interpretations and to prioritize legislative intent in judicial review of agency action. “It prioritizes legislative intent and increases transparency in state government actions,” the sponsor said, and noted provisions to make settlements and contested cases publicly searchable on the state website.

Proponents included former Representative Lynn Hellegard, who said the bill borrows aspects of reform enacted in Indiana and Idaho and was reviewed by academics; she argued it would require judges to consider agency interpretations without bias and resolve doubts in favor of individual liberty and property rights. Brian Norman of the Goldwater Institute testified that the bill would ensure judges “review agency actions without deference and instead interpret the relevant legal text de novo.” Jim Manley of Pacific Legal Foundation and Don Capes of the Coalition for Safety and Justice also supported the measure, tying it to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that disallowed Chevron deference.

Opponents included Lieutenant Governor Kristin Juras, who noted Montana courts already apply nuanced standards of review and said the bill would “disrupt the separation of powers balance by removing a court’s respectful consideration of an agency’s expertise.” Sonya Nowakowski, director of the Department of Environmental Quality, cited recent cases in which courts affirmed agency technical judgments (e.g., permitting and environmental determinations) and warned the change could eliminate helpful deference to scientific and technical expertise. Trade groups and unions, including the Montana AFL-CIO and Montana Mining Association, expressed concern about unintended consequences for labor, employment and resource permitting.

Committee members asked numerous clarifying questions about scope and application. Sponsor Deming said the bill is intended to prioritize legislative intent and that the courts would still be able to consider agency facts and expertise; he also pointed to provisions that would require public posting of settlements and decisions. Opponents urged caution, saying agencies frequently apply technical expertise to complex matters like water rights, permitting and environmental reviews.

Outcome: the hearing closed with no vote. Committee members requested additional information; sponsor signaled openness to refine language and members suggested narrow drafting to avoid unintended effects on technical permitting and labor rules.