Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves 'Deference Elimination Act' to codify limits on agency deference to courts
Summary
Representative Matt Reeves presented HB1247 to codify that courts—not agencies—interpret law; sponsors cited recent Georgia cases (Eternal Vigilance Action and Raffensperger v. Jackson) to justify limiting agency legal deference; the committee debated judicial consultation, technical cases, and appellate implications before passing the bill by voice vote.
Representative Matt Reeves presented House Bill 1247, the Deference Elimination Act, saying it would codify that elected officials make law, judges interpret law, and agencies execute law. Reeves emphasized the bill preserves existing standards for factual findings while addressing legal standards of review, and said it enacted the nondelegation principle reflected in recent Georgia decisions including Eternal Vigilance Action (EVA) and the Jackson licensing case.
Committee members questioned whether the measure belongs in the Governmental Affairs Committee or should go to Judiciary, whether the bill should define "deference" in statute, and whether the legislature had consulted judges. Representative Roberts and others warned the bill could invite additional appeals or complicate technical cases where courts rely on agency expertise. Supporters, including Chairman Leverett and Scott Turner (a party in EVA), argued the EVA decision reestablished nondelegation principles and that codification would provide clarity across agencies.
Representative Roberts raised a point of order and a motion to table was called and voted on by voice; in the chair's view the "noes" prevailed and the committee proceeded. After further discussion a motion to pass was made and seconded; the committee approved the bill by voice vote and the chair declared it passed.
The transcript records substantial debate about tailoring the statute to avoid interfering with factual-findings standards and about whether the new law could increase appeals; the bill as presented retains existing standards for factual review while addressing legal standards of interpretation.
