MUNICIPAL: Provides relative to the judicial review of land use
HB 446 amends a provision to clarify that judicial review of land use decisions applies to both "ordinances" and "acts" issued by local governments. This minor procedural change directly affects courts and municipal officials handling land use cases, ensuring clarity in legal language. The bill does not create new policies or alter substantive land use rules - only adjusts wording in a single legal phrase. It passed committee and is now moving toward final passage.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Apr 2025
Committee Review
May 2025
House Passage
May 2025
Senate Passage
Jun 2025
Signed into Law
Jun 2025
Introduced Apr 4, 2025
Signed Jun 11, 2025
Maddy AI version diff · 3 comparisons
What changed between versions
HB446 Original
→
HB446 Act 277
·
3 edits
MINOR
This bill updates the legal title to reflect its final enacted status and expands the grounds for judicial review of local land use decisions. Specifically, it broadens the scope of reviewable actions from just 'ordinances' to include any 'act' taken by local authorities, planning commissions, or administrators. It also clarifies that judicial review is limited to the specific record created during the original decision-making process.
Scope change
The bill's scope was expanded to include 'acts' in addition to 'ordinances' as reviewable items, and the applicable entities were clarified to include the planning administrator.
REQUIREMENT
Expanded judicial review grounds to apply to both 'ordinances and acts' rather than just 'ordinances', allowing citizens to challenge a wider range of local government actions.
Clarified that judicial review is limited to the specific record established during the original hearing, preventing the introduction of new evidence during appeals.
TECHNICAL
Updated document headers and footers to change the status from 'Original' to 'Enrolled' and 'Act No. 277', reflecting the bill's final passage and approval by the governor.
Floor votes · Senate Jun 3, 2025 · House May 8, 2025
How they voted
35–0
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 37
Jun 3, 2025
D
Democratic11
100% Yea
R
Republican26
92% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
22
Key actions
4
Committee
5
Jun 3, 2025
Upper · Passed
Read by title, passed by a vote of 37 yeas and 0 nays, and ordered returned to the House. Motion to reconsider tabled.
upper
May 27, 2025
Committee
Read by title and referred to the Legislative Bureau.
upper
May 21, 2025
Upper · Passed
Rules suspended. Reported favorably.
upper
May 8, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read third time by title, roll called on final passage, yeas 97, nays 0. Finally passed, title adopted, ordered to the Senate.
lower
Apr 30, 2025
Lower · Passed
Reported with amendments (10-0).
lower
Apr 14, 2025
Committee
Read by title, under the rules, referred to the Committee on Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs.
lower
Apr 4, 2025
Committee
Under the rules, provisionally referred to the Committee on Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Annie Spell
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about HB 446
Scope: LA
Hi! I can help you understand HB 446. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline