Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Statutory Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables bill that would bar deference to agency interpretations of statutes
Summary
Senate Bill 222, which would have required courts and administrative hearing officers to interpret statutes, rules and regulations de novo and to resolve remaining doubts in favor of constitutional rights, was tabled after members and commenters questioned separation of powers and whether the change was necessary.
Senate Bill 222, a statutory proposal that would bar courts and administrative hearing officers from deferring to a state agency's interpretation of statutes and would direct resolving lingering doubts in favor of fundamental constitutional rights, was tabled by the House Committee on Judiciary Wednesday.
Jason Thompson of the Revisor's Office summarized the bill as directing courts and hearing officers to interpret state statutes and agency rules de novo rather than deferring to agency interpretations and to "exercise any remaining doubt in a way that is consistent with an individual's fundamental constitutional rights." Thompson's briefing prompted questions about whether the change was necessary or appropriate.
Several committee members and commentators warned the bill intruded on judicial prerogatives and was redundant with existing law. Representative Carmichael described the measure as "some of the most unnecessary legislation I have ever seen," noting that Kansas case law long ago limited judicial deference doctrines. Representative Lewis said the legislature should not tell courts how to interpret statutes and suggested the bill could be unconstitutional if it attempted to usurp judicial authority.
After discussion, Representative Carmichael moved to table the bill indefinitely; Representative Vaughn seconded. The committee voted to table SB 222 by voice vote Wednesday.
