Modifies the standard of review for agency interpretation of statutes, rules, regulations, and subregulatory documents
SB 221 repeals and replaces Missouri’s judicial review statute for agency decisions, section 536.140, RSMo. The bill keeps the existing framework for reviewing contested administrative cases, including review for constitutional violations, actions beyond agency authority, lack of substantial evidence, unlawful procedure, arbitrariness, and abuse of discretion. It also preserves the general rule that courts review agency cases without a jury and may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand agency orders.
The major change is in how courts interpret agency-related legal texts. Under the bill, courts and administrative hearing officers may not defer to a state agency’s interpretation of a statute, rule, regulation, or other subregulatory document, and must interpret those materials de novo. In cases involving state agencies, if ambiguity remains after applying ordinary interpretive tools, the court must resolve the doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty. The bill also revises language on when courts may consider additional evidence or remand cases, while retaining limits on substituting judicial discretion for agency discretion unless the agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously.
SB 221 would significantly alter Missouri administrative law by eliminating judicial deference to state agency interpretations and directing courts to independently construe statutes and regulations. This would affect how state agencies, regulated parties, and courts handle disputes over agency authority, rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudication, likely making it easier for challengers to contest agency interpretations. The bill amends section 536.140, RSMo, and would apply to judicial review of contested cases and other administrative decisions where review is provided by law.
The voting history suggests the bill had substantial support in both chambers, passing the Senate 25-7 and the House 120-20. That margin indicates broad bipartisan or at least cross-faction support for tightening judicial review of agency action and reducing deference to agencies. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows support through votes but not detailed floor or committee debate.
The central point of contention is the bill’s removal of agency deference and its instruction that courts resolve remaining ambiguity in favor of limiting agency power and maximizing individual liberty. Supporters likely view this as a check on administrative overreach and a protection for regulated individuals and businesses, while opponents may see it as weakening agency expertise and making state administration less predictable. Another possible area of concern is the breadth of the new standard, which applies to statutes, rules, regulations, and subregulatory documents and could affect a wide range of state agency actions.