| 3 | 3 | | H.F. 853 Section 1. Section 17A.19, subsection 10, paragraph c, Code 1 2025, is amended to read as follows: 2 c. Based upon an erroneous interpretation of a provision 3 of law whose interpretation has not clearly been vested by a 4 provision of law in the discretion of the agency . 5 Sec. 2. Section 17A.19, subsection 10, paragraph l, Code 6 2025, is amended by striking the paragraph. 7 Sec. 3. Section 17A.19, subsection 11, Code 2025, is amended 8 by striking the subsection. 9 Sec. 4. Section 17A.23, Code 2025, is amended by adding the 10 following new subsection: 11 NEW SUBSECTION . 5. Notwithstanding any provision of the 12 Code to the contrary, a court, or a presiding officer in a 13 contested case or other administrative action subject to this 14 chapter, when interpreting a state statute or a rule or other 15 agency document subject to this chapter, shall not defer to 16 an agencys interpretation of the statute, rule, or document, 17 and must instead interpret its meaning and effect de novo. 18 In an action brought by or against an agency, the court or 19 officer, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, 20 must exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable 21 interpretation that limits agency authority. 22 EXPLANATION 23 The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with 24 the explanations substance by the members of the general assembly. 25 This bill concerns the interpretation of law in 26 administrative and judicial proceedings under Code chapter 17A, 27 the Iowa administrative procedure Act. 28 Under current law, a court must reverse, modify, or grant 29 other appropriate relief from agency action in specified 30 circumstances if it determines that substantial rights of the 31 person seeking relief have been prejudiced. Such circumstances 32 include agency action based upon an irrational, illogical, 33 or wholly unjustifiable interpretation of a provision of law 34 whose interpretation has clearly been vested by a provision 35 -1- LSB 1539HV (1) 91 je/ko 1/ 2 |
|---|
| 5 | 5 | | H.F. 853 of law in the discretion of the agency. If interpretation 1 of the provision of law has not been clearly vested in the 2 discretion of the agency, the standard of review is instead 3 whether the agencys interpretation is erroneous. Current law 4 also provides standards for a court regarding the determination 5 of the degree of deference to be given to the view of an agency, 6 based on whether a provision of law has vested the agency with 7 discretion over the matter in question. The bill strikes these 8 provisions and instead provides that a court must reverse, 9 modify, or grant other appropriate relief from agency action 10 based upon an erroneous interpretation of a provision of law. 11 The bill additionally prohibits a court, or a presiding 12 officer in a contested case or other administrative action 13 subject to Code chapter 17A, when interpreting a state statute 14 or a rule or other agency document subject to Code chapter 17A, 15 from deferring to an agencys interpretation of the statute, 16 rule, or document; the bill instead requires the court or 17 officer to interpret its meaning and effect de novo. The 18 bill requires the court or officer, in an action brought by 19 or against an agency, after applying all customary tools of 20 interpretation, to exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a 21 reasonable interpretation that limits agency authority. 22 -2- LSB 1539HV (1) 91 je/ko 2/ 2 |
|---|