AN ACT relating to administrative procedure; amending the judicial review process of agency actions; amending standards of review of administrative actions; specifying applicability; and providing for an effective date.
Summary
HB0066 would change how Wyoming courts review state agency actions and interpret agency-related legal materials. The bill amends the state’s judicial review statute to direct courts, when interpreting a state statute, rule, regulation, sub-regulatory document, or final agency decision, not to defer to an agency’s interpretation and instead decide the meaning de novo. It also adds a rule that, after using all customary tools of interpretation, any remaining doubt in cases involving state agencies should be resolved in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty.
The bill also updates related judicial review language for decisions of inspectors under the oil and gas statutes, tying that review to the revised administrative review standard. The new provisions would apply only to actions for judicial review filed on or after the effective date, which is July 1, 2026.
Impact
If enacted, HB0066 would significantly alter Wyoming administrative law by reducing or eliminating judicial deference to state agencies’ interpretations of statutes, rules, and final decisions. Courts would be required to independently interpret the law rather than rely on agency expertise or construction, and in close cases would favor interpretations that constrain agency authority. This would affect state agencies broadly, as well as regulated parties and litigants challenging agency actions, by changing the standard of review in administrative appeals and potentially making agency decisions easier to contest.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support in the House Judiciary Committee, where it received a 7-1 recommendation to do pass, and it also cleared introduction and referral with a strong vote. At the same time, the bill did not advance to consideration of the Committee of the Whole, indicating that while it had some backing, it may not have had enough momentum or consensus to move forward in the chamber. No committee transcripts are available, so the discussion record does not show detailed public arguments for or against the measure.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s rejection of judicial deference to agency interpretations, which would shift interpretive authority away from state agencies and toward courts. Supporters are likely to view this as a separation-of-powers and individual-liberty measure that limits administrative overreach, while opponents may see it as undermining agency expertise, reducing predictability, and increasing litigation over regulatory meaning. The “maximize individual liberty” language is also likely to be controversial because it instructs courts to resolve residual ambiguity in a way that favors limiting government power.