HF 36 (LSB 1539YH (2) 91)

HOUSE FILE 36

BY  GUSTOFF

A BILL FOR

An Act relating to interpretation of law in administrative and judicial proceedings under the Iowa administrative procedure Act.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

    Section 1.  Section 17A.19, subsection 10, paragraph c, Code 2025, is amended to read as follows:
   c.  Based upon an erroneous interpretation of a provision of law whose interpretation has not clearly been vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency.
    Sec. 2.  Section 17A.19, subsection 10, paragraph l, Code 2025, is amended by striking the paragraph.
    Sec. 3.  Section 17A.19, subsection 11, Code 2025, is amended by striking the subsection.
    Sec. 4.  Section 17A.23, Code 2025, is amended by adding the following new subsection:
   NEW SUBSECTION.  5.  Notwithstanding any provision of the Code to the contrary, a court, or a presiding officer in a contested case or other administrative action subject to this chapter, when interpreting a state statute or a rule or other agency document subject to this chapter, shall not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the statute, rule, or document, and must instead interpret its meaning and effect de novo. In an action brought by or against an agency, the court or officer, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, must exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency authority.
EXPLANATION
The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with
the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly.
   This bill concerns the interpretation of law in administrative and judicial proceedings under Code chapter 17A, the Iowa administrative procedure Act.
   Under current law, a court must reverse, modify, or grant other appropriate relief from agency action in specified circumstances if it determines that substantial rights of the person seeking relief have been prejudiced. Such circumstances include agency action based upon an irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable interpretation of a provision of law whose interpretation has clearly been vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency. If interpretation of the provision of law has not been clearly vested in the discretion of the agency, the standard of review is instead whether the agency’s interpretation is erroneous. Current law also provides standards for a court regarding the determination of the degree of deference to be given to the view of an agency, based on whether a provision of law has vested the agency with discretion over the matter in question. The bill strikes these provisions and instead provides that a court must reverse, modify, or grant other appropriate relief from agency action based upon an erroneous interpretation of a provision of law.
   The bill additionally prohibits a court, or a presiding officer in a contested case or other administrative action subject to Code chapter 17A, when interpreting a state statute or a rule or other agency document subject to Code chapter 17A, from deferring to an agency’s interpretation of the statute, rule, or document; the bill instead requires the court or officer to interpret its meaning and effect de novo. The bill requires the court or officer, in an action brought by or against an agency, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, to exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency authority.