WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5815

Administrative procedure: judicial review; judicial review of administrative rules; modify. Amends sec. 61 of 1969 PA 306 (MCL 24.261).

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Joe Aragona and 21 co-sponsors

HB 5815 creates rebuttable presumptions that filed and published rules are valid, requires judicial notice, and mandates independent judicial review of agency authority.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
#administrativeprocedure:judicialreview
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5815

Summary of Michigan HB 5815 (2025-2026)

Purpose of the Bill

HB 5815 seeks to modify section 61 of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969 (PA 306, MCL 24.261), which governs the filing, publication, and judicial handling of administrative rules. The bill aims to affect how courts treat rules, presumptions about rule adoption/publication, and judicial review of agency actions in rulemaking.

Key Provisions

  • Rebuttable Presumption Concerning Rule Filing

    • When a rule is filed under the Administrative Procedures Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that the rule was adopted, filed with the Secretary of State, and made available for public inspection as required by law.
    • This places the initial burden on challengers to show the rule did not meet those requirements, rather than requiring the agency to prove compliance in every instance.

  • Rebuttable Presumption Concerning Publication

    • Publication of a rule in any of the following publications creates a rebuttable presumption that:
    • The rule was adopted, filed with the Secretary of State, and made publicly available as required.
    • The printed text in the publication is a true and correct copy of the promulgated rule.
    • All statutory requirements related to the rule have been complied with.
    • The effect is to bolster presumed validity of published rules, shifting some evidentiary burden to challengers.

  • Judicial Notice by Courts

    • Courts are required to take judicial notice of a rule that becomes effective under the act.
    • This clarifies that courts may recognize the existence and effect of a rule without requiring parties to prove its content in every case.

  • Independent Judicial Review of Agency Authority

    • Courts must exercise independent judgment in determining whether an agency acted within its statutory authority when promulgating rules.
    • The bill explicitly states that courts should not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law if the statute is ambiguous.
    • This provision reinforces judicial surveillance over agency rulemaking and limits deference to agency interpretations in cases of ambiguity.

Who Is Affected

  • State Agencies and rulemaking authorities: The standards for filing, publication, and judicial acknowledgment of rules are clarified and potentially bolstered, with implications for how agencies defend rules in court.
  • Judicial system (courts in Michigan): The bill changes evidentiary presumptions and requires independent scrutiny of agency authority, affecting how rule challenges are litigated.
  • Public and stakeholders: Indirectly affected through potentially more robust judicial checks on administrative rules and clearer public access requirements.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • The bill amends Sec. 61 of the Administrative Procedures Act. The changes come into effect upon enactment (subject to passage and signing into law as part of the 2025-2026 session).
  • It introduces presumptions that can streamline or shift the burden in rule challenges, and mandates judicial notice of rules once they become effective.
  • The bill has multiple sponsors, indicating broad legislative support, and was referred to the Rules Committee as part of the legislative process.

Practical Implications

  • Challenges to rules may require proving that publication or filing occurred, but defendants (the agencies) benefit from rebuttable presumptions that support the validity of published rules.
  • Courts retain and strengthen oversight by not deferring to agency interpretations where statutory language is unclear.
  • Public notice and accessibility of rules are reinforced through presumptions tied to publication and availability.

If you’d like, I can compare HB 5815 to current law (pre-enactment) or provide a side-by-side impact analysis for agencies, litigants, and public stakeholders.

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

Sign in to ask a question.