To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act requires de novo trial of the facts when agency action seeks a sanction.

Summary of HR 9278 (Session 119)

Purpose and intent

HR 9278 proposes a fundamental change to how judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is conducted when an agency action seeks to impose a sanction. Specifically, the bill would require that, in such cases, the court conducts a de novo trial on the factual record rather than reviewing the agency’s decision under the existing standards of review (such as arbitrary-and-capricious, substantial evidence, or other APA review standards). The aim is to ensure that factual determinations underlying sanctionive agency actions are reevaluated anew by the judiciary, rather than given deferential treatment to the agency’s factual findings.

Key provisions and changes

• Scope of review: Applies to APA judicial review specifically where a federal agency action seeks to impose a sanction.
• De novo standard for facts: Courts must conduct a de novo trial on the factual record for sanction-related agency actions. This means the court would review the facts anew, with no deference to the agency's factual findings.
• Procedural framework: The bill establishes or restates procedures for how the de novo trial on the record would be conducted, including admissibility of evidence, burden of proof, and standards of decision on the factual issues.
• Roles and proceedings: The bill would define how the administrative record is presented, the allowance for new evidence or testimony, and how the court should resolve factual disputes.
• Remedies and relief: In sanction cases, the court’s remedies would align with typical judicial review outcomes, but based on its de novo assessment of the factual record.

Who and what is affected

• Interested parties: Individuals, businesses, or entities subject to federal agency sanctions where agency action is being challenged in federal court under the APA.
• Federal agencies: Agencies that sanction individuals or entities (e.g., enforcement actions) and that would be subject to de novo fact-finding on appeal under this bill.
• Judicial process: The standard of review in APA cases involving sanctions would shift from current deferential review to de novo fact-finding.

Procedural and timeline aspects

• Introductory status: Introduced in the House and referred to the Judiciary Committee on June 11, 2026.
• Sponsor: Co-sponsored by Harriet Hageman.
• Next steps: If reported out of committee, the bill would proceed to consideration by the full House for debate and potential floor vote, and could move to the Senate for further action (subject to the legislative process).

Potential implications

• Legal ramifications: The shift to de novo factual review in sanction cases would increase the judiciary’s direct role in determining factual matters, potentially altering outcomes in enforcement actions.
• Agency impact: Agencies may face stronger scrutiny of their factual findings in court, possibly affecting how sanctions are prepared and defended.
• Litigation posture: Sanction-related APA challenges could become more fact-intensive and time-consuming due to de novo trials on the merits of factual issues.

Note: The summary reflects the bill’s stated provisions as introduced. Final enacted text could differ in scope, definitions, and procedural details.