The case involved a manual first issued in 20-22.
It required challengers to use a uniform application to become credentialed and to raise concerns through a designated liaison… and it detailed what types of challenges are considered “permissible.”
The lawsuit sought to undo those changes—arguing the guide counted as a “rule” and should have been put through the state’s official rulemaking process.
But the state Supreme Court found the manual mostly fell within exceptions to that process made for when an agency is interpreting the law with a policy.
The court did overturn parts of the guide that allow a challenger liaison to decide a challenge is impermissible on the spot without recording it.
