An Act amending Title 1 (General Provisions) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in rules of construction, further providing for legislative intent controls.
Summary
HB585 amends Pennsylvania’s rules of statutory construction by narrowing one of the factors courts may consider when determining legislative intent. Specifically, it removes “administrative” interpretations from the list of matters that may be used to ascertain the meaning of a statute when the text is not explicit, leaving only legislative interpretations in that provision. The bill is a targeted change to Title 1 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes and does not create a new program, benefit, or regulatory scheme.
In practical terms, the bill would direct courts and other interpreters of Pennsylvania law to rely less on agency or administrative interpretations when statutory language is ambiguous. The measure takes effect immediately if enacted, so it would alter how ambiguous statutes are interpreted from the date of passage forward. Because it affects a general rule of construction rather than a single subject area, its impact would extend across many areas of state law where administrative agencies have historically influenced statutory interpretation.
Impact
HB585 would amend 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c)(8) by deleting the reference to “administrative” interpretations as a permissible aid in determining legislative intent. This would change Pennsylvania’s interpretive framework for ambiguous statutes and reduce the formal role of agency interpretations in judicial analysis, while preserving consideration of legislative interpretations. The bill would affect courts, state agencies, litigants, and any statutes whose meaning is disputed, but it would not directly amend substantive law outside Title 1.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available record suggests a technical, policy-focused measure rather than a highly contentious one. The sponsors’ decision to introduce the bill indicates support for limiting administrative influence in statutory interpretation, likely reflecting a preference for legislative primacy. No opposing arguments, amendments, or vote totals are provided in the materials, so there is no documented public controversy in the record supplied.
Contention
The main point of contention is the role of administrative agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes. Supporters are likely to favor a narrower interpretive rule that emphasizes legislative intent over agency gloss, while critics may argue that removing administrative interpretations could reduce judicial access to practical expertise and longstanding agency construction. Because the bill concerns a general rule of construction, the disagreement is less about one policy area and more about separation of powers, deference to agencies, and how Pennsylvania courts should resolve statutory ambiguity.
In general provisions, further providing for definitions; and, in abandoned vehicles and cargos, further providing for reports by private property owners of abandoned vehicles.