Nelson, Sara C (10 September 2019). "Parliament Prorogued: Scuffles And Bursts of Song As MPs Protest Shutdown". HuffPost UK. a b "Brexit: Scottish judges rule Parliament suspension is unlawful". BBC News. 11 September 2019. Archived from the original on 26 May 2020 . Retrieved 24 September 2019.

Is the question of whether the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen was lawful justiciable in a court of law? Judge rejects temporary ban on Parliament shutdown ahead of full hearing". BBC News. 30 August 2019. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019 . Retrieved 24 September 2019. A Brief Chronology of the House of Commons" (PDF). Factsheets. House of Commons Information Office. General Series (G3). August 2010. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 April 2016 . Retrieved 12 September 2019.The three appeal judges of the Inner House of the Court of Session noted that O'Neill made "interesting and stirring" remarks about a Scottish tradition of holding the Crown to account; the judges stated O'Neill had "not actually identified any material differences between the applicable Scots law and the corresponding English law" and his argument was "pushing at an open door". [27] Hearing [ edit ] Press and anti-prorogation protesters assemble outside the Supreme Court on 17 September 2019 After the 2017 general election, the government, led by Theresa May, announced that the first session of Parliament after the election would last until 2019—normally, parliamentary sessions last a year—to allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny of their Brexit plans. [6] By May 2019, the session had become the longest to sit since the Long Parliament, some four centuries before. [7] The government's preferred Brexit withdrawal agreement was rejected three times in early 2019, which deepened tensions between opposition politicians, the government, and advocates of a " no-deal Brexit"; Brexit was subsequently delayed until 31 October 2019, and May resigned her leadership of the Conservative Party. [4] May was succeeded in the following party leadership election by Boris Johnson, [4] whose campaign team had floated the possibility of prorogation to force a no-deal Brexit despite Parliament overwhelmingly rejecting the proposition. [8] Honeycomb-Foster, Matt (25 September 2019). "Attorney General slaps down Jacob Rees-Mogg over claim Supreme Court launched 'constitutional coup' ". PoliticsHome. Archived from the original on 8 December 2019 . Retrieved 27 September 2019.

It had in fact already been heard by three of the most senior judges who sit in the Court of Appeal: see above. In the case of Prime Hydration, we see word of mouth (or digital word of mouth) resonate with more speed than COVID at a super-spreader event. Don’t believe me? Here’s the at-home rapid test: R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry and Others v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41(24 September 2019) This case concerns the conglomeration of two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland.The number of justices who sit on a Supreme Court case must be odd to prevent tied votes. ( Bowcott 2019c)

Hutton, Mark; Lawrence, Kate; Mawson, Chloe (7 October 2020). " '... as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank sheet of paper': Parliament's procedural handling of the Supreme Court's nullification of prorogation". Hansard Society. Archived from the original on 23 December 2019 . Retrieved 23 December 2019. R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry and Others v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41at para. 50(24 September 2019)

The Court placed its analytical emphasis on effect/impact rather than improper motive and thus did not have to grapple with the thorny issue of bad faith. This has been described as a potential “elision of review on reasonableness and scope-of-power-grounds” ( Prof. Mark Elliott). How this approach might affect future judicial review cases is difficult to predict, as this case was in many ways a “one-off”, as Lady Hale put it. No reasonable justification Supreme Court: Parliament suspension case 'a difficult question of law' ". BBC News. 17 September 2019. Archived from the original on 8 June 2020 . Retrieved 24 September 2019. For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such an exceptional course. Finnis, John (28 September 2019). The unconstitutionality of the Supreme Court's prorogation judgment (PDF) (Report). Policy Exchange. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 October 2019 . Retrieved 3 November 2019. Argument was advanced by the Government claiming that the Inner House could not declare that any prorogation resulting from the advice was of not effect because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court; however, the Court ruled that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. Rather, it is something which has been imposed upon them from outside, not being something which members of Parliament can speak or vote on.