House committee advances bill to codify de novo review, limit agency deference
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee voted to advance House Bill 66, which would require courts reviewing Administrative Procedures Act appeals to interpret statutes and agency decisions de novo and limit judicial deference to agency interpretations. Supporters said it restores judicial independence; opponents warned of separation‑of‑powers risks.
Vice Chair Representative Singh introduced House Bill 66 to clarify how courts should review agency decisions under the Administrative Procedures Act, saying the bill requires courts to "interpret the meaning of the statute, rule, regulation, or final decision, and effect de novo." He told the committee the measure is short, carries no fiscal note and would take effect July 1.
Singh said the bill is designed "to simultaneously reinforce judicial independence while also separating that branch of government from the executive branch," and that it aims to prevent executive agencies from having "a thumb on the scales." He described de novo review as giving the judiciary a "fresh set of eyes." Representative Chastick and others questioned whether the bill extends beyond typical APA appeals and whether removing statutory language about the Supreme Court's rules could raise separation‑of‑powers concerns.
Tyler Lindholm, state director of Americans for Prosperity, testified in favor. He said U.S. Supreme Court precedent removing Chevron deference motivated state action and cited Wyoming cases he said showed inconsistent agency deference, pointing to ExxonMobil v. Wyoming Department of Revenue (2009) as an instance where the court credited an agency interpretation.
Committee members debated multiple amendments that would have restored permissive language allowing Supreme Court rules to supersede statutes and language about prejudicial error; both amendment attempts failed. Representative Chester proposed simplifying the text to a single sentence requiring de novo review, but that motion died for lack of a second. Another amendment to replace the phrase "actions brought" with "reviews" was considered and failed.
The committee then held a roll call vote. The clerk recorded 7 ayes, 1 no and 1 excused; the bill was advanced to the House floor. Representative Singh said he will carry the bill and is open to amendments on the floor.
What happens next: House Bill 66 now heads to the full House for further consideration, where floor amendments are possible.