Has the UK Supreme Court become too willing to constrain the executive?
Format. Click a card to flip and see the answer on the back. Use these to drill named cases, dates, statutes and key concepts.
12 cards
Constitutional Reform Act
2005 - created the modern UK Supreme Court (operational October 2009), separating it from the House of Lords.
Click to flip
Miller 1 (case)
2017 - Supreme Court ruled that triggering Article 50 required an Act of Parliament, not the royal prerogative.
Click to flip
Miller 2 / Cherry (case)
2019 - Supreme Court unanimously (11-0) ruled that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful because it frustrated the legislature's constitutional functions.
Click to flip
Belmarsh (case)
2004 - Law Lords ruled that indefinite detention of foreign nationals breached the Human Rights Act. Decided before the modern Supreme Court existed.
Click to flip
Begum (case)
2021 - Supreme Court deferred to the executive on national security and refused to second-guess the Home Secretary's decision to revoke citizenship.
Click to flip
Rwanda (case)
2023 - Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda was not a safe third country for asylum seekers. Found the policy unlawful on legal grounds.
Click to flip
Safety of Rwanda Act
2024 - Parliament responded to the 2023 ruling by declaring Rwanda safe by statute and disapplying parts of the HRA for these cases. Court accepted.
Click to flip
Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998
Allows the UK government to block a Scottish Parliament Bill that would have adverse effects on reserved matters. First used in 2023 over the Gender Recognition Reform Bill.
Click to flip
Declaration of incompatibility (HRA s.4)
A finding by a UK court that a statute is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Does NOT invalidate the statute. Parliament may choose to amend or to ignore.
Click to flip
Why does Miller 2 being unanimous matter?
A unanimous 11-0 ruling is much harder to dismiss as politically motivated than a split decision. The Court was reaching a settled legal conclusion.
Click to flip
Why is Begum NOT inconsistent with Miller 2?
Different kinds of question. Miller 2 was about legality of prerogative use; Begum was about discretionary national-security judgement. The Court polices legality, defers on policy.
Click to flip
Strongest AO3 line for "not too willing"
The Court polices legality but consistently defers to Parliament when primary legislation overrides its rulings. Rwanda 2023-24 proves it.