Review of administrative and judicial rules.
HB 1495 creates a new Administrative Rules Review Committee within the Indiana General Assembly and gives it a formal role in reviewing certain administrative rules and proposed judicial rules. The committee would be a 12-member continuing legislative committee staffed by the Legislative Services Agency, with public meetings and records subject to open meetings and public records laws. It would review rules submitted under the bill’s new procedures, especially where the fiscal impact is estimated to exceed a specified threshold.
For executive branch administrative rules, the bill requires agencies to submit the rule, regulatory analysis, and supporting materials for fiscal review by the Office of Fiscal Management and Analysis. If the estimated fiscal impact on state and local government is greater than $300,000, the rule must go to the new committee and cannot take effect unless authorized by a bill enacted by the General Assembly. The bill also changes the rule-filing process so that certain high-impact rules cannot be filed with the publisher until legislative authorization is obtained.
The bill also addresses Supreme Court rulemaking. It adds findings and amendments stating that the General Assembly’s authority includes oversight of rules affecting public finance, public safety, and the operation of prisons or jails, and it narrows the scope of court rulemaking by stating those subjects are not matters of court practice or procedure. Before proposed Supreme Court rules take effect, the Court must submit them and any economic impact statement to the Legislative Council for fiscal analysis, and rules with fiscal impacts above $300,000 would also require review by the new committee and legislative authorization.
HB 1495 would therefore significantly expand legislative oversight over both agency rulemaking and certain judicial rules, especially those with substantial fiscal effects on state or local government. It would amend multiple sections of the Indiana Code governing administrative procedure and court rules, and it would create a new statutory process that can delay or block implementation of rules unless the legislature affirmatively approves them by statute.
The bill’s general sentiment, based on the text and lack of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, appears to be strongly pro-legislative oversight and fiscal control. The main point of contention is likely separation of powers: the bill explicitly anticipates that its review of Supreme Court rules should not be construed as an exercise of judicial power, suggesting sensitivity to constitutional concerns. Another likely area of dispute is the $300,000 threshold and the requirement that affected rules receive enacted legislative authorization before taking effect, which could be viewed as a significant constraint on agency and court rulemaking authority.
HB 1495 would amend Indiana’s administrative rules process and court-rule statutes by creating a new legislative committee, requiring fiscal review of proposed rules, and conditioning the effectiveness of certain high-cost rules on enactment of a bill by the General Assembly. It would affect state agencies, the Supreme Court, the Legislative Council, the Office of Fiscal Management and Analysis, and any state or local government entities impacted by rules with estimated fiscal effects above $300,000.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or recorded support/opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure reflects a clear legislative preference for tighter oversight of rulemaking, especially where fiscal impacts are significant. The bill’s findings and structural changes suggest an intent to assert legislative control rather than a compromise approach.
The most notable contention is separation of powers, particularly the bill’s attempt to subject proposed Supreme Court rules to legislative fiscal review and possible legislative approval. Supporters would likely frame this as necessary oversight of public finance and policy impacts, while opponents may argue it intrudes on judicial authority and administrative independence. A second likely point of contention is the breadth of the review trigger: any rule with an estimated fiscal impact over $300,000 would face additional legislative hurdles, which agencies and courts may view as burdensome or politicizing routine rulemaking.