WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5816

Administrative procedure: guidelines; de novo review during administrative law hearings; allow. Amends secs. 79 & 106 of 1969 PA 306 (MCL 24.279 & 24.306).

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Joe Aragona and 5 co-sponsors

The bill requires de novo review of contested administrative decisions by presiding officers and courts, enhancing impartiality and independent fact‑finding.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
#administrativeprocedure:guidelines #administrativeprocedure:judicialreview
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5816

Summary of HB 5816 (2025-2026) – Michigan

Basic information

  • Title: Administrative procedure: guidelines; de novo review during administrative law hearings; allow. Amends secs. 79 & 106 of 1969 PA 306 (MCL 24.279 & 24.306)
  • Jurisdiction: Michigan
  • Session: 2025-2026
  • Sponsor(s): Rep. Luke Meerman (primary); co-sponsors include Matt Bierlein, Tim Kelly, Rachelle Smit, Mike Harris, Joe Aragona
  • Status: Introduced and referred to Rules Committee (as of the latest action 2026-04-16/21)

Purpose and intent

The bill proposes to amend the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969 to explicitly require de novo review in contested-case hearings and in court review of those decisions, and to clarify procedures if a presiding officer is disqualified or unable to continue. The overarching aim is to ensure fresh consideration (de novo) of contested administrative decisions and to standardize handling of potential biases or disqualification issues.

Key provisions and changes

Section 79: Contested case hearings

  • Presiding officers: An agency, one or more agency members, a person designated by statute, or one or more hearing officers designated and authorized by the agency to handle contested cases shall be the presiding officers.
  • Hearing conduct: Contested case hearings must be conducted impartially.
  • De novo review by presiding officers: The presiding officers shall conduct the review de novo (i.e., anew, without giving deference to the agency’s prior findings) in contested cases.
  • Bias/disqualification: If a party files a timely and sufficient affidavit of personal bias or disqualification in good faith, the agency shall determine the matter as part of the record. The agency’s determination is subject to judicial review at the end of the proceeding.
  • Disqualification or inability to proceed: If a presiding officer is disqualified or unable to continue, another presiding officer may continue the hearing unless doing so would cause substantial prejudice to a party.

Section 106: Judicial review

  • Scope of review (default): Absent a statute or constitutional provision to the contrary, courts shall conduct de novo review and shall not defer to the agency’s decision.
  • ** grounds for reversal or remand:** A court shall set aside a decision or order if substantial rights of the petitioner were prejudiced due to:
    • (a) Constitutional or statutory violations
    • (b) Excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction
    • (c) Unlawful procedure causing material prejudice
    • (d) Lack of competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record
    • (e) Arbitrary, capricious, or unwarranted discretion
    • (f) Other substantial and material legal error
  • Remedies: The court may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the agency decision as appropriate.

Who/what is affected

  • Administrative agencies and their contested-case processes: Agencies and their presiding officers conducting contested cases would be governed by de novo review standards.
  • Interested parties in contested cases: Petitioners and respondents in administrative proceedings would benefit from de novo consideration and explicit avenues for challenging presiding officers’ impartiality.
  • Judicial review process: Courts would apply de novo review by default when reviewing agency decisions under this framework, rather than deferring to agency findings, subject to statutory or constitutional exceptions.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Effective date and implementation: The text excerpt does not specify an effective date; typical implementation would follow passage and publication, with agencies aligning to the de novo review standard.
  • Process for bias/disqualification: Timely and sufficient affidavits of bias trigger agency review of the presiding officer’s status, with judicial review of the agency’s determination.
  • Continuity of proceedings: If a presiding officer is replaced during a hearing, continuation is allowed unless substantial prejudice is shown.

Potential implications

  • The bill strengthens de novo review, potentially increasing the rigor and length of contested-case proceedings.
  • It emphasizes impartiality and provides a clear mechanism to challenge presiding officers’ suitability.
  • Courts would engage in more independent fact-finding during judicial review, potentially altering outcomes in some contested cases.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.