Minnesota House Bill HF3113

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/3/25
• Refer: 4/3/25

Caption

Administrative Procedure Act requirements added to emphasize statutory authorization for rules, governor's statutory authority to authorize rules in an emergency rescinded, and court deference to agency rule interpretation precluded.

Impact

If enacted, HF3113 will require agencies to adhere strictly to legislative mandates, meaning that any rule they wish to adopt must have an explicit statutory basis. The intention is to curb the perceived overreach by agencies that may create rules ungrounded in law, fostering more bureaucracy and potentially increasing the time and effort required for compliance. The clarity on rulemaking processes aims to enhance transparency and predictability for both agencies and the public, ensuring that all stakeholders are better informed about the sources of agency power.

Summary

House File 3113 (HF3113) introduces significant changes to the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act by explicitly adding new requirements that emphasize the need for statutory authorization in rulemaking. This bill proposes to rescind the governor's authority to enact rules under emergency situations, thereby shifting the framework towards a more legally grounded basis for rule introduction. Furthermore, the bill states that courts will not show deference to agency interpretations of their own rules, which fundamentally alters the judicial review process regarding agency actions and regulations.

Contention

The proposal has sparked debate among lawmakers and stakeholders, particularly regarding the broader implications for governmental response during emergencies. Proponents argue that removing the governor's emergency rulemaking powers is essential for maintaining checks and balances within the state's governance. However, critics warn this could hinder swift governmental responses in crisis situations, which rely on the ability to adapt and enact necessary regulations quickly. This bill is seen by some as a reassertion of legislative authority over executive functions, reflecting deeper political divides over governance philosophy in Minnesota.