statute under the constitutional requirement in Tennessee

2018In his brief, Mr. King argues that the Act “advances the legislative intent poorly if at all and may in fact undermine it” because “the obligations of advancing legislative intent in complying with constitutional safeguards is … effectively dumped in the lap of the TBI, which . . . has no authority to decide constitutional attacks on its mandate, or at least ones making facial challenges.” Mr. King is correct that the TBI cannot decide facial constitutional challenges to the Act; we note that “an agency does not have the authority to determine the facial validity of a statute under the constit

2016Administrative agencies do not “have the authority to determine the facial validity of a statute under the constitutional requirement of separation of powers.” Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827, 844 (Tenn. 2008); see Tenn. Const. art. 2, § 2.4 Such authority is reserved for the judiciary.