Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding the issuance of a subpoena in a contested case.
Summary
House Bill 36 amends the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act by adding a new section governing subpoenas in contested administrative cases. It authorizes a presiding officer, either on a party’s request or on the officer’s own initiative, to issue subpoenas for witnesses and for the production of books, records, and other evidence when the request shows general relevance and a reasonable scope for the hearing. The bill also specifies how those subpoenas are to be served, requires the requesting party to pay witness fees as in civil actions, and allows district courts to enforce, modify, or set aside the subpoena and punish noncompliance as contempt.
The measure is procedural rather than substantive, but it affects how evidence is obtained and compelled in agency adjudications under state administrative law. By creating a clear subpoena framework for contested cases, it gives administrative hearing officers and parties a defined mechanism for securing testimony and documents, while also placing judicial review and enforcement in the district courts. The bill takes effect July 1, 2025, and includes a severability clause to preserve the rest of the act if any part is invalidated.
Impact
This bill adds Section 67-5251A to Title 67, Chapter 52 of the Idaho Code, expanding the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act with explicit subpoena authority in contested cases. It affects administrative agencies, hearing officers, parties to agency proceedings, witnesses, and district courts by clarifying when subpoenas may issue, how they are served, who pays witness fees, and how they may be enforced or challenged in court.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong and unanimous support in both chambers, with the House passing the bill 69-0 and the Senate passing it 34-0. No committee transcript is available, but the unanimous votes suggest the bill was viewed as a routine, noncontroversial procedural update to administrative law.
Contention
No notable opposition appears in the available record. The main policy issue embedded in the bill is the balance between efficient evidence gathering in contested administrative proceedings and judicial oversight to ensure subpoenas remain reasonable in scope. Because the bill sets a relevance-and-reasonableness standard and preserves district court review, any concern would likely center on subpoena breadth, enforcement authority, or costs to requesting parties, but no specific objections are documented.