Harriet Hageman (R-WY)
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.
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
H.R. 9278 is a bill introduced by Ms. Hageman to amend title 5 of the United States Code. The goal is to change how judicial review works under the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, it requires a de novo trial of the facts when an agency action is seeking a sanction.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Enhances due process by requiring a de novo trial of facts for those facing agency sanctions.
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Provides better legal protection against agency sanctions via a full factual review by courts.
- Scored +2
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Provides a more rigorous judicial review process (de novo) for businesses facing agency sanctions.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this give the federal government more power?
Limits the deference courts give to federal agency findings during sanctions reviews.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- De novo trial of facts: By amending Section 706 of title 5, the bill requires a new trial of the facts when agency action seeks a sanction. This allows the court to look at the facts again rather than just relying on the agency's previous findings.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for people are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides better legal protection against agency sanctions via a full factual review by courts.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides a more rigorous judicial review process (de novo) for businesses facing agency sanctions.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Enhances due process by requiring a de novo trial of facts for those facing agency sanctions. Does this give the federal government more power? — Limits the deference courts give to federal agency findings during sanctions reviews.
- 6/11/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in House