You just got a letter that says a new rule affecting your case came from an agency, but a judge will decide whether that rule was applied legally. That situation points to separation of powers: the constitutional principle that divides government authority among separate branches, usually the legislative branch that makes laws, the executive branch that enforces them, and the judicial branch that interprets them. The idea is to prevent too much power from gathering in one place and to create checks between branches.

In practical terms, separation of powers helps explain who can do what. A legislature can pass a statute, but it cannot decide a particular lawsuit. An agency may investigate or enforce regulations, but courts can review whether the agency stayed within its authority. Judges resolve disputes, but they do not run executive agencies or write new legislation. Questions about judicial review, administrative law, and due process often overlap with this principle.

For an injury claim, separation of powers can affect how rules are made and challenged. A Hawaii agency may issue procedures that shape claims handling, but a court can still decide whether those procedures conflict with statutes or constitutional limits. In Hawaii, fault rules such as the state's modified comparative fault system, with a 51 percent bar under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31, come from legislation, while courts apply and interpret that rule in individual cases.