Restrict the deference given by courts to a state agency's interpretation of a state statute, administrative rule, or policy.
Summary
SB 122 would change how South Dakota courts and administrative hearing officers review a state agency’s interpretation of statutes, administrative rules, and agency policies. Under the bill, decision-makers could consider an agency’s interpretation, but they would no longer be allowed to defer to it; instead, they would have to interpret the law de novo, using their own independent judgment. The bill also directs courts and hearing officers, after using the usual tools of interpretation, to resolve any remaining ambiguity in favor of a reasonable interpretation that is consistent with an individual’s fundamental constitutional rights.
The bill further amends the state’s administrative appeals statute, § 1-26-37, to make clear that Supreme Court review of circuit court decisions remains on the usual appellate standard and is not de novo, except where the new section requires independent interpretation of agency-related legal questions. In practical terms, SB 122 would reduce the influence of agency expertise in legal interpretation and shift more interpretive authority to judges and hearing officers, potentially affecting how state agencies defend regulations, policies, and enforcement actions.
Impact
SB 122 would alter South Dakota administrative law by limiting judicial deference to agency interpretations of law and policy, effectively replacing any deferential standard with independent judicial review for those interpretive questions. It would affect state agencies, regulated parties, and litigants in administrative disputes by making agency readings less controlling and by requiring courts and hearing officers to favor rights-protective interpretations when ambiguity remains. The bill also clarifies appellate review language in § 1-26-37 to align with the new de novo interpretation rule.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill has support but also meaningful opposition or hesitation. In committee, it received a 4-3 vote to defer to the 41st legislative day, indicating a divided panel rather than broad consensus. No transcript excerpts are available, but the bill’s subject matter typically appeals to supporters of judicial independence and limits on administrative power, while drawing concern from those who favor agency expertise and stable administrative enforcement.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether courts should defer to state agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws and rules. Supporters are likely to argue that deference gives agencies too much power and can weaken individual rights, while opponents are likely to argue that agencies have subject-matter expertise and that removing deference could create more litigation, less predictability, and less efficient administration. The bill’s instruction to resolve remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable rights-protective interpretation may also be controversial because it could be seen as tilting close cases against agencies in favor of regulated individuals.