U.K. Supreme Court to Rule on Parliament Suspension Tuesday
U.K. Supreme Court to Rule on Parliament Suspension Tuesday
(Bloomberg) --
The U.K.’s top judges will rule Tuesday morning on whether Boris Johnson acted lawfully when he suspended Parliament, a decision that will shape the course of Brexit and determine the power of future prime ministers.
If the Supreme Court finds Johnson suspended Parliament illegally, he could be forced to recall the legislature, giving opponents of a no-deal Brexit time to thwart his plans to leave by Oct. 31. The announcement will come at 10:30 a.m.
Trapped in office after being blocked by lawmakers from calling an election, and without a majority or control over the House of Commons’ agenda, Johnson couldn’t be in a tighter spot: Stopping Parliament from sitting is his last political weapon. If he wins, he would be able to adjourn parliament again and, potentially, try to leave the European Union without a deal -- an outcome MPs are determined to stop.
The unprecedented legal challenge to the powers of the prime minister shows how the political infighting over Brexit has strained Britain’s largely unwritten constitution to its limits. It has also pushed the judiciary into the uncomfortable position of ruling on a question of politics, something Britain’s Supreme Court has largely eschewed unlike its U.S. counterpart.
The three-day hearings ended Thursday with the justices seeming to move beyond the question of whether the suspension was unlawful to the consequences of their decision. They devoted time to what orders they could possibly make, questioning who had the authority to recall Parliament -- the prime minister or the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.
Seven justices will be in attendance for the ruling, including the president Judge Brenda Hale.
MPs have already moved to block a no-deal exit by passing the so-called Benn bill, which requires to a delay to Brexit until Jan. 31. If Johnson tries to circumvent that, he could find himself facing another legal challenge.
The Supreme Court case is the result of lower-court challenges in England and Scotland that argued Johnson’s reason for suspending Parliament was to remove its ability to hold the government to account. While the English court said it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the political question, the Scottish court found Johnson was trying to stymie the legislature and Parliament should be recalled.
The parties challenging the government -- businesswoman Gina Miller in London and lawmakers in Scotland -- “are inviting the courts into forbidden territory and one that is essentially a minefield, an ill-defined minefield,” Richard Keen, a government lawyer, said in court.
During the hearings, the judges pressed the lawyers for insight on how Johnson might react to a loss after the government lawyers refused to rule out the possibility that Parliament could be suspended again in the run up to the Brexit deadline. David Pannick, a lawyer challenging the move, asked the court to “encourage” Johnson to recall MPs as soon as possible. If he defied the ruling, it would be up to the speaker to do it, he said.
“It would be a matter for the speaker to decide how best now to proceed. They would know that this court, the Supreme Court, had ruled that the prime minister’s advice was unlawful and know that the basis of that declaration was that the court took the view that parliamentary scrutiny was required,” Pannick said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan Browning in London at jbrowning9@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at aaarons@bloomberg.net, Christopher Elser
©2019 Bloomberg L.P.