Judiciary committee hears bill to bar courts from deferring to agency legal interpretations

March 6 — The House Committee on Judiciary heard testimony on Senate Bill 222, which would bar state courts and administrative hearing officers from deferring to a state agency’s interpretation of a statute, rule, regulation or document that has the force of law and would require de novo interpretation where fundamental constitutional rights are implicated.

Committee members heard a bill brief from Jason Thompson of the Revisor’s Office, who said the measure arrives on the committee floor as amended by the Senate and incorporates definitions from the Kansas Judicial Review Act. He noted the Senate passed the bill, 31-9.

Support testimony came from Jim Manley, state policy chief at the Pacific Legal Foundation. Manley said the proposal is rooted in separation-of-powers concerns and would codify a practice Kansas courts have followed for the past decade. “When an agency brings an individual into court or before their own administrative hearing, it's fundamentally important that the court not put a thumb on the scale in favor of the agency's interpretation,” Manley told the committee. He also cited the federal Supreme Court’s recent move away from the Chevron doctrine as illustrative that courts can change deference doctrines over time.

At least three committee members asked for clarifications. Representative Schreiber queried whether “fundamental constitutional rights” is defined in statute; Thompson responded that the phrase has meaning in case law but is not given a statutory definition. Representative Carmichael and others pressed on whether the bill merely restates existing constitutional supremacy and Kansas case law; proponents argued the statute would preserve current practice even if future courts revisit precedent.

Written proponent submissions on the record included groups and individuals identified as Randy Stuckey (Kansas Grain and Feed), Eric Stafford (Kansas Chamber), Elizabeth Patton (Americans for Prosperity Kansas), and Brian Norman (Goldwater Institute). Neutral written testimony was filed by Dorinda Mitchell of the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts. No in-person opponents testified at the hearing. The committee closed the public hearing without taking a floor vote on SB 222.

The bill would create a new statutory section instructing courts and hearing officers that they may consider, but shall not defer to, a state agency’s interpretation and must interpret statutes, rules, regulations or equivalent documents de novo; where doubt remains, the draft directs courts to resolve it in a manner consistent with individuals’ fundamental constitutional rights.

Committee Chair closed the hearing and moved on to other agenda items; no committee vote on the bill was recorded at this meeting.