Abstract
United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson best articulated the human element, giving life to the Nation's Highest Court, when he stated: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." With the Legislature eventually approving a balanced budget by a supermajority vote, the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling in Guinn v. Legislature, will stand, at least for now, because it is "final." However, the Guinn ruling is far from "infallible." The circumstances leading to the Court's decision, as well as the court's logic, have created a dangerous precedent that could extend far beyond Nevada. For example, this potential precedent was alluded to by United States District Court Judge Roger Hunt during the en banc hearing following the Guinn decision. When Judge Hunt asked defense counsel if the Guinn logic would apply beyond the Nevada Senate Bill 6 ("SB 6") budget proposal and allow the Legislature to ignore the supermajority vote in any situation requiring an increase in public revenue to support education, defense counsel responded: "[w]e don't know if the ruling means more [than SB 6], we only know that it does not mean less." Unfortunately, the ruling does mean "more." And the future implications, along with the flawed judgment of this holding, necessitate a reconsideration of the Nevada Supreme Court's decision.
Recommended Citation
Troy L. Atkinson,
The Future of Guinn v. Legislature,
4
Nev. L.J.
566
(2004).
Available at:
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nlj/vol4/iss3/6