SB340

Under the separation-of-powers provision of the Nevada Constitution, one department of the State Government may not exercise powers properly belonging to another department of the State Government “except in the cases expressly directed or permitted in this constitution.” (Nev. Const. Art. 3, § 1) As a general rule under the separation-of-powers doctrine, because the question of whether a regulation adopted by an executive agency exceeds its statutory authority or is inconsistent with legislative intent presents a question of statutory interpretation, the power to resolve that question of statutory interpretation and determine whether to invalidate or nullify the regulation is usually regarded as judicial power because “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” (Nevadans for Nev. v. Beers, 122 Nev. 930, 943 n.20 (2006) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 3 U.S. 137, 177-78 (1803)); Berkson v. LePome, 126 Nev. 492, 499 (2010) (explaining that “[t]o declare what the law is or has been is judicial power; to declare what the law shall be is legislative.” (quoting 1 Thomas M. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 191 (8th ed. 1927)); Silver State Elec. Supply Co. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Tax'n, 123 Nev. 80, 84 (2007) (“appeals involving interpretation of a statute or regulation present questions of law subject to our independent review.”)) For example, in applying the separation-of-powers doctrine to the Federal Government and