Bill
SB 2285
North Dakota SB 2285 ends court deference to agencies, requiring judges to interpret statutes and regulations independently, using ambiguity to limit agency power.
Status
- Introduced by Senators Cory, Sickler, Paulson (with Representatives Koppelman, Vetter, Schauer listed as House sponsors).
- Prepared by Legislative Council staff (document dated Jan. 28, 2025); filed with the Secretary of the Senate Mar. 11, 2025.
- Procedural outcome: Second reading — failed to pass (yeas 31, nays 57).
Purpose / Intent
- To remove judicial deference to administrative agencies’ interpretations of statutes, regulations, or rules. The bill directs state courts to interpret legal texts independently and to resolve any remaining ambiguity against expanding agency authority.
Key provisions (text-based)
- Creates a new section in chapter 28‑32 of the North Dakota Century Code titled “Judicial deference.”
- Prohibits a judge, “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” from deferring to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute, regulation, or rule.
- Requires courts, after applying customary rules of statutory interpretation, to resolve any remaining ambiguity against increased agency authority.
What the bill would change
- Eliminates (at the state-law level) the practice of courts giving deference to an agency’s reasonable or authoritative interpretation of ambiguous law (analogous to limiting or rejecting doctrines like Chevron or Auer deference in federal jurisprudence).
- Shifts ultimate interpretive authority from administrative agencies to judges: courts would perform independent interpretation and use ambiguity as a tie-breaker to restrict expansions of agency power.
Who would be affected
- State administrative agencies: decreased persuasive power relying on their own interpretations in litigation and enforcement.
- State courts and judges: increased role and responsibility for independently construing statutes and regulations.
- Regulated entities and the public: potentially greater reliance on judicial interpretations rather than agency guidance; possible changes in enforcement outcomes.
- Attorneys and litigants: potential increase in litigation over statutory/regulatory meaning and fewer cases resolved by deference to agency positions.
- The Legislature: incentive to draft clearer statutory language to avoid ambiguity and litigation.
Potential practical effects
- Legal uncertainty in the short term as courts and agencies adapt; probable increase in judicial challenges to agency interpretations.
- Agencies may respond by making rules more specific, using formal rulemaking or adjudication, or increasing record-based reasoning to persuade courts.
- Could alter regulatory predictability, compliance costs, and administrative enforcement strategies.
Notes / Clarifications
- Some documents in the record reference an unrelated Illinois Senate Bill 2285 (transportation/bicycle definition). This summary addresses the North Dakota SB 2285 concerning judicial deference.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
