If adopted, South Dakota courts and administrative hearing officers would interpret state laws themselves and resolve certain doubts in favor of reasonable readings that respect fundamental rights.
Courts and officers hearing administrative actions would decide for themselves what state laws, rules, and policies mean, without deferring to a state agency’s reading. In agency cases, remaining doubt must favor a reasonable reading consistent with a person’s fundamental constitutional rights.
A person affected by a final circuit court judgment under this chapter, or the agency, could appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court. The court would review the judgment with the same deference it uses in other appeals.
State courts and officers hearing administrative actions would interpret state laws, rules, and policies without deferring to a state agency’s interpretation. This applies when interpreting a state statute, administrative rule, or policy. In actions brought by or against state agencies, after using customary tools to interpret the law, decision-makers must resolve any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation consistent with an individual's fundamental constitutional rights.
The South Dakota Supreme Court would review circuit court judgments under this chapter with the same deference it gives in other appeals. This concerns appeals to the South Dakota Supreme Court from final circuit court judgments under this chapter. An aggrieved party or the agency may appeal a final circuit court judgment under this chapter. The appeal may not be considered anew, except as required by section 2.
No hearings or votes scheduled.