Montana Should End Judicial Deference to State Agencies

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises  v. Raimondo is reshaping federal land use in Wyoming and policy throughout the United States.

The ruling reversed decades of precedent requiring courts to defer to a U.S. agency’s interpretation of laws. This meant that federal judges were required to favor the government over individual taxpayers or businesses, regardless of how far off base an agency’s interpretation strayed from common sense or a plain reading of the law.

Now it’s time for Wyoming legislators to follow suit by enacting legislation allowing state judges to interpret laws on the merits instead of weighing state agency opinions above those of individual residents or businesses.

An example of how this practice impacted Wyoming was the Biden Administration’s May 9, 2024, decision to elevate non-use of public lands for conservation to the same level as mineral extraction, grazing and recreation. Nowhere in the 1976 law (the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)) authorizing the latter three uses is there reference to non-use being a valid mandate for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

So, without Congressional approval, the BLM radically changed its mandate in a way that would significantly impact the ability of Wyoming residents to earn a living and enjoy the federal lands within our state borders. And no one could do anything about it.

Bolstered by Loper, however, the Trump Administration is proposing to rescind the Biden interpretation, known as the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, and return to the BLM’s prior mandate to operate in accordance with principles of “multiple use” and “sustained yield” under FLPMA. The Trump Administration is also in the process of rescinding multiple land use plans finalized under the Biden Administration that shut down coal production and limited leases for oil and gas.

Prior to the Loper decision, multiple states— including Florida, Arizona, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Idaho — recognized the importance of letting judges use independent judgment in deciding cases instead of favoring state agency interpretations. They acknowledged, as Chief Justice John Roberts did during his 2005 Senate confirmation, that the proper role of judges should be “to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

The majority of states, however, including Wyoming and Mountain West neighbors Montana and Washington, still defer to agencies, at least partially. As Taylor Walker wrote earlier this year for The Goldwater Institute:

“Across the nation, government agencies often expand their constitutional power by applying overly generous interpretations of statutes and their own regulations. These expansive interpretations are then upheld by the courts, who are quick to defer. This creates an unbalanced legal system where the cards are stacked in favor of unelected government employees and against average Americans.”

Goldwater, along with the Pacific Legal Foundation, created model legislation to remedy the situation—a version of which Gov. Brad Little of Idaho signed into law in March 2024. The two-sentence Judicial Deference Reform Act simply states:

A. In interpreting a state statute, regulation, or other sub-regulatory document, a state court or an officer hearing an administrative action may not defer to a state agency’s interpretation of it, and must instead interpret its meaning and effect de novo.

 B. In actions brought by or against state agencies, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, the court or hearing officer must exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation which limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty.

Wyoming legislators and those in Montana and Washington should adopt this language to permanently ensure that citizens receive equal treatment with government agencies under the law. An added benefit to the legislation would be that lawmakers would be encouraged to be more specific since courts rule against the drafter when contract provisions are unclear.

In a state like Wyoming, whose residents so value individual freedom, enacting the Judicial Deference Reform Act should be a no-brainer.