H.R. 9278: To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act requires de novo trial of the facts when agency action seeks a sanction.

This bill would change how federal courts review certain agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which is the main law that governs how federal agencies make decisions and issue rules.

What would change

Under current law, when a court reviews an agency action, it generally gives deference to the agency’s findings of fact in many situations and focuses more on whether the agency followed the law and acted reasonably. This bill would require courts to take a fresh look at the facts themselves—called a de novo trial of the facts—when the agency action being challenged seeks a sanction.

In plain terms, if an agency is trying to impose a penalty, punishment, or other sanction, the court would not just review the agency’s factual findings for error. Instead, the court would independently examine the facts as if deciding them anew.

How the APA text would be revised

The bill would amend Section 706 of title 5 of the U.S. Code, which tells courts how to review agency actions. It would:

• make clear that judicial review covers both questions of law and questions of fact in the relevant context;
• change language in the part of the law dealing with review of agency fact-finding, replacing a phrase that limits review with language referring to agency rulemaking or adjudication carried out under the APA’s notice-and-comment or formal hearing procedures.

Practical effect

The likely effect would be to give people and businesses facing agency sanctions a stronger opportunity to challenge the facts underlying the agency’s decision. Courts would play a more active role in deciding what actually happened, rather than relying mainly on the agency’s record and findings.

This could affect cases involving federal enforcement actions, penalties, license suspensions, permit revocations, or similar sanctions, depending on how the amended language is applied by courts.

Relevant Companies

None found