Skip to main content
H 7384Civil Procedure

State Affairs and Government - Administrative Procedures

Courts will no longer automatically trust a government agency's interpretation of laws when reviewing legal cases against them.

Introduced
Population
Affected
35
Introduced Jan 28, 2026Committee House State Government & Elections

Plain-English Summary

This legislation changes the way courts handle disagreements between individuals (or businesses) and state government agencies. Currently, when a court reviews a decision made by a government agency, the court often gives "deference" to the agency, meaning they assume the agency's interpretation of the law is correct because they are the experts. This bill removes that automatic deference. It requires judges to interpret the law and rules completely on their own, without favoring the agency's previous decision. This applies to cases involving regulated parties challenging agency rulings.

For younger readers

Imagine you are playing a game, and the person who made the rules also gets to be the referee. Sometimes, that referee decides what a rule means in a way that helps them win. This bill says that if you disagree with the referee (the government agency) and go to a judge, the judge doesn't have to listen to how the referee explains the rule. The judge gets to decide what the rule actually means all by themselves, to make sure it is fair for everyone.

Who & Where It Applies

Impacted groups
Regulated businessesState government agenciesJudges and court staffAttorneysIndividuals appealing agency decisions
Impacted communities
All

Constitutional & Fiscal Check

None Likely

Estimated cost
Amount unknown
Estimated revenue
None

Bill Analysis

Both viewpoints
For Progressives
  • Empowers the judiciary to independently interpret laws, potentially overturning agency decisions that may unjustly deny benefits or services to vulnerable populations who have been wronged by bureaucratic errors.
  • Prevents administrative agencies from overstepping their authority by creating their own favorable interpretations of statutes, ensuring better checks and balances on executive power.
  • Allows for a fresh legal review of cases where an agency might be biased against a citizen, potentially leading to fairer outcomes in disputes involving civil rights or social services.
  • Undermines the expertise of specialized agencies (like environmental protections or labor boards) by allowing generalist judges to ignore technical interpretations of complex regulations.
  • May lead to the weakening of critical protections for workers and the environment if conservative courts interpret regulations more narrowly than the agencies charged with enforcing them.
  • Increases the likelihood of inconsistent rulings across different courts, potentially creating confusion and hindering the effective implementation of statewide social programs.
For Conservatives
  • Significantly reduces the power of the "administrative state" by preventing unelected bureaucrats from broadening their own authority through self-serving interpretations of the law.
  • Protects small businesses and individuals from regulatory overreach by ensuring that an impartial judge, rather than the agency itself, interprets the rules during disputes.
  • Restores the proper constitutional role of the judiciary to say what the law is, preventing the executive branch from usurping legislative intent through regulation.
  • Could allow "activist judges" to reinterpret laws in ways that expand government authority or create new rights not intended by the legislature, bypassing agency restraint.
  • Might create uncertainty for businesses if established agency rules are suddenly overturned by courts, making long-term planning more difficult.
  • Could increase the volume and cost of litigation against the state, potentially leading to higher tax burdens to fund legal defenses.

Votes

Loading votes...

Full Bill Text

Changes to existing Rhode Island law · 5 additions

SECTION 1. Section 42-35-15 of the General Laws in Chapter 42-35 entitled "Administrative Procedures" is hereby amended to read as follows: 42-35-15. Judicial review of contested cases.

(a) Any person, including any small business, who has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the person within the agency, and who is aggrieved by a final order in a contested case is entitled to judicial review under this chapter. This section does not limit utilization of or the scope of judicial review available under other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo provided by law. Any preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency act or ruling is immediately reviewable in any case in which review of the final agency order would not provide an adequate remedy.

(b) Proceedings for review are instituted by filing a complaint in the superior court of Providence County or in the superior court in the county in which the cause of action arose, or where expressly provided by the general laws in the sixth division of the district court or family court of Providence County, within thirty (30) days after mailing notice of the final decision of the agency or, if a rehearing is requested, within thirty (30) days after the decision thereon; provided, however, that any person who is aggrieved by a final order concerning the assessment or determination of any tax, interest, or penalty made by the tax administrator must pay the amount of the tax, interest, or penalty to the administrator as a prerequisite to the filing of such complaint. Copies of the complaint shall be served upon the agency and all other parties of record in the manner prescribed by applicable procedural rules within ten (10) days after it is filed in court; provided, however, that the time for service may be extended for good cause by order of the court.

(c) The filing of the complaint does not itself stay enforcement of the agency order. The agency may grant, or the reviewing court may order, a stay upon the appropriate terms.

(d) Within thirty (30) days after the service of the complaint, or within further time allowed by the court, the agency shall transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review. By stipulation of all parties to the review proceedings, the record may be shortened. Any party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be taxed by the court for the additional costs. The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record.

(e) If, before the date set for the hearing, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency, the court may order that the additional evidence be taken before the agency upon conditions determined by the court. The agency may modify its findings and decision by reason of the additional evidence and shall file that evidence and any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court.

(f) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs. In a proceeding brought by or against the regulated party, the court shall decide all questions of law, including the interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision or a rule adopted by an agency, without deference to any previous determination that may have been made on the question by the agency.

(g) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon passage.