Welcome to the Monday, June 16, 2025, Brew.
By: Lara Bonatesta
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Four state legislatures have passed bills ending judicial deference in 2025, most recently Missouri and Oklahoma
- Voters recall two Maine school board members
- Did you know Utah has the longest-running state government trifecta?
Four state legislatures have passed bills ending judicial deference in 2025, most recently Missouri and Oklahoma
In the 2025 legislative sessions, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Texas enacted laws prohibiting judicial deference by state courts to state administrative agencies. In a fourth state, Missouri, the legislature approved a bill and sent it to the governor’s desk. It had not been signed as of June 13.
Three states were Republican trifectas. The other, Kentucky, has a divided government, and the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) veto.
Background
If you aren’t already familiar with it, at the federal level, the Chevron doctrine of judicial deference refers to the administrative law principle that requires federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute.
The 1984 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. outlined the original, two-step Chevron process. The Supreme Court overturned it last year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Check out last year’s episode of On The Ballot to learn more about that decision.
Judicial deference is central to many debates about the administrative state and the balance of power between agencies and the courts. State-level approaches to judicial deference vary significantly, and state courts are not required to conform to federal deference doctrines.
Today, we’re looking at the states that have passed laws ending or restricting judicial deference this year.
Missouri
The Missouri Legislature approved SB 221, which prohibits judicial deference. The Senate passed the bill 25-7 on March 6, with two Democrats and 23 Republicans voting in favor, and seven Democrats opposed. The House passed the bill 120-20 on May 15, with 16 Democrats and 104 Republicans voting in favor, and 20 Democrats opposed. It was delivered to Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) on May 30.
Missouri courts currently give deference to state agencies in cases routinely, while there are also instances of courts opting against deference. The Pacific Legal Foundation classified judicial deference as inconsistent. The State Court Report said Missouri gives “agencies’ interpretations ‘considerable weight’ or ‘appreciable deference.’ […] in Missouri, courts ‘defer to the expertise of an administrative agency in reaching decisions based on scientific and technical data.’”
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed HB 2729 on May 21 after it passed the Oklahoma House 71-16 on May 14 and the Senate 37-8 on May 5. Both chambers passed the bill along party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. HB 2729 prohibits state courts from deferring to a state agency when the courts interpret statutes, rules, or other regulations. The law instead requires courts to interpret the meaning and effect of the rule using a de novo standard and requires state courts to give a “reasonable interpretation which limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty” when there is ambiguity.
Prior to HB 2729, state courts commonly deferred to agencies when reviewing rules and agency actions. Research by the Pacific Legal Foundation stated Oklahoma courts generally defer to agency interpretations of statutes and rules. The State Court Report said Oklahoma employed robust deference to agency interpretations.
Kentucky
On March 27, the Kentucky General Assembly overrode Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) veto of Senate Bill 84. The bill said that “[a]n administrative body shall not interpret a statute or administrative regulation with the expectation that the interpretation of the administrative body is entitled to deference from a reviewing court.” Kentucky is one of two states with a governor of one party and a state legislature of another party that holds a veto-proof majority. In Kentucky, a simple majority of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto.
Prior to SB 84, state courts commonly deferred to agencies when reviewing rules and agency actions. The State Court Report said Kentucky employed robust deference to agency interpretations. The Pacific Legal Foundation categorized Kentucky as a state with inconsistent deference, but favored an analysis that the norm was deference.
Texas
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed Senate Bill 14 on April 23. The Senate passed it 26-5 on March 26, and the House passed it 97-51 on April 9. The bill said that courts must interpret the law “without giving deference to any legal determination by a state agency.”
Concerning Texas judicial deference policy prior to SB 14, the State Court Report said Texas “employ[ed] robust deference to agency interpretations.” According to the Pacific Legal Foundation, Texas courts defer to agencies’ interpretations unless they are plainly inaccurate or inconsistent with statute.
Currently in all four states, courts commonly or routinely give deference to state agencies.
Context: Judicial deference in the states
Since 2013, 14 states (15 if the Missouri governor signs SB 221) have ended or restricted state court deference to state administrative agencies. Some states restricted or ended judicial deference through court rulings, while others did so through legislation. One state, Florida, eliminated judicial deference through a 2018 constitutional amendment approved by voters. In the other 35 states, levels of deference and specific deference standards applied by state courts to agency rules and actions vary.
Click here to see Ballotpedia’s extensive resource on the administrative state and our content specific to the Chevron doctrine. You can also click here to use Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Legislation Tracker to see a list of the 35 bills related to judicial deference introduced this year.
Voters recall two Maine school board members
As part of Ballotpedia’s goal to cover every recall effort that is officially underway across the United States, today we’re taking a look at the June 10 recall election against two school board members in Maine.
Voters recalled two members–Alisha Ames and Judy Saunders–of the Maine School Administrative District 46 school board.
According to the unofficial election night results, there were 387 votes in favor of recalling Ames and 131 against, a margin of 74.7%-25.3%. In the recall election against Saunders, there were 382 yes votes and 186 no votes, a margin of 67.3%-32.7%.
A group called Stop the Power Trip started the recall effort, which the MSAD #46 Education Association supported.
The recall affidavit against Ames said she had a conflict of interest due to co-owning and operating a homeschooling co-op. Stop the Power Trip said that the homeschooling co-op competes with the school district. The affidavit also said Ames’ position on the board “is detrimental to the school district and community of Dexter.”
The recall affidavit against Saunders said her membership on the board violates the school district’s nepotism policy because her daughter works for the district. The nepotism policy states that the school district cannot employ “any person who is a member of the immediate family of a board member or of the Superintendent.”
Stop the Power Trip includes two former school board candidates and one former member. All three ran for election in 2024 and were unsuccessful.
In response to the recall effort against her, Ames said, “I want what is best for the children of Dexter, and for public schools to be open and transparent and welcoming to every child, and to provide the best possible education to our kids.”
Saunders said that when she was elected to the board, her daughter was already working for the district, and a contract protected her. Saunders said she was told in December 2024 that her daughter would be fired if she took her position on the board and said, “I viewed this as an attempt to coerce me into giving up my civil rights.”
To get the recalls on the ballot, recall supporters had to submit 296 petition signatures per board member. Recall supporters submitted 363 signatures against Ames and 350 signatures against Saunders.
As of June 12, Ballotpedia has tracked 15 school board recall efforts against 30 school board members in 2025.
Three school board members, including Ames and Saunders, have been removed from office in recall elections. Two school board members face recall elections that have not yet been held, two school board members resigned, and the efforts against 12 board members did not go to a vote.
The school’s efforts against 11 board members remain underway. We consider a recall effort officially underway if some form of paperwork has been submitted to begin the recall process.
As of June 12, Ballotpedia has tracked 150 recall efforts against 210 officials across all office types in 2025. At that time, 19 of the officials targeted for recall had been removed from office in a recall election, a success rate of 9%.
Click here to learn more about political recall efforts in 2025.
Did you know Utah has the longest-running state government trifecta?
A state government trifecta is a term to describe a single-party government when one political party holds the governorship and majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. The Republican Party has controlled the governorship and held majorities in the Utah State Legislature since 1985.
Democrats have held the governorship and both chambers of the legislature in Delaware since 2009, making it the longest-running Democratic trifecta.
Currently, there are 23 Republican trifectas, 15 Democratic trifectas, and 12 divided governments where neither party holds trifecta control.
Learn more about state government trifectas here.