Can the Supreme Court control gov power?

What is the ultimate judgement for evaluating the extent to which the Supreme Court can control government power?

• While the UK Supreme Court can act as a powerful moral and legal check on executive power through judicial review and rights-based rulings, its influence is ultimately constrained by parliamentary sovereignty and political realities.

• It may illuminate when the government overreaches—but it cannot always intervene decisively, especially when the executive holds a dominant majority in the Commons.

• Nonetheless, its role in upholding constitutional norms and limiting executive abuse is growing, especially post-2010.

The SC have significantly control government power through judicial reviews. Give an explanation and example.

The Supreme Court has shown it can challenge executive decisions through judicial review—especially when government actions are unlawful or overstep legal authority (acting ultra vires).

EXAMPLE: In R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019), the Court ruled unanimously that Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect.” This landmark case checked executive power during a politically volatile Brexit period, reinforcing the Court’s ability to assert constitutional principles.

While it cannot strike down primary legislation like in the SCOTUS, the UK SC still plays a …?

Vital role in clarifying the limits of executive power and ensuring government acts within the law

While Miller (2019) showed judicial assertiveness, it also revealed the limits of the Court’s power. How so?

Despite ruling Johnson's prorogation unlawful, no penalties followed, and Parliament resumed only days before the scheduled recess anyway. The government suffered no long-term legal consequences.

Evaluation: The ruling may have symbolically checked executive abuse, but it didn’t practically constrain government power. It exposed how even strong judgments can be politically sidestepped without meaningful enforcement power. The judiciary barked—but the executive still walked away untouched.

How can the SC use the HRA 1998 to challenge policy?

The HRA allows the Court to issue declarations of incompatibility when legislation contravenes human rights - pressuring the government to amend the law.

When was the last time the SC declared an Act of Parliament incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights?

Illegal Migration Act 2023 - High Court in Northern Ireland (2024)

• The High Court in Northern Ireland declared several provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

• The Court found that certain sections of the Act breached certain sections of the Convention, particularly concerning the treatment of children and victims of human trafficking.

• As a result, these provisions were disapplied in Northern Ireland, and the ruling has prompted discussions about amending the legislation to comply with human rights standards.

Although declarations of incompatibility don’t legally nullify the law, …?

Although declarations of incompatibility don’t legally nullify the law, they carry significant political weight and often result in reform—acting as an indirect check on government actions.

Declarations of incompatibility are not legally…?

Not legally binding, and governments can IGNORE them.

EXAMPLE: 2021 ruling that the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships was incompatible with human rights (Steinfeld v Secretary of State) but Parliament delayed action until forced politically.

Rishi Sunak’s 2023 Rwanda Bill deliberately…?

Sunak’s Rwanda Bill deliberately disapplied sections of the HRA and sought to prevent legal interference by the courts.

Evaluation: The HRA is powerful only when the executive respects it. If a majority gov wants to bulldoze past human rights protections, the Court can do little more than advise. Legal theory gives its strength - but political reality weakens it.

The SC has limited control over gov power because parliamentary sovereignty reduces the Court’s control. Explain.

The UK operates under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, meaning the government—especially with a strong majority—can legislate freely and override judicial rulings.

How does the Belmarsh case prove parliamentary sovereignty can trump SC actions?

In Belmarsh Detainees Case (2004), the Law Lords (now the SC) ruled that indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 violated human rights.

Following the Belmarsh case, the government simply passed new legislation (the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005) to reframe detention powers, showing that the Court’s decisions can be bypassed by Parliament.

Judicial checks are weaker in practice as the UK judiciary, unlike in codified systems, cannot…?

UK judiciary cannot strike down primary legislation.

How has the SC successfully influenced/pressured Parliament despite the doctrine of sovereignty?

In Miller (2017), the Court forced the May government to legislate before triggering Article 50, directly shaping the Brexit process.

Similarly, judicial pressure around deportation and asylum has delayed or derailed executive decisions multiple times, including halting deportation flights to Rwanda as of 2024.

The UK SC tends to show judicial restraint in ________ matters…?

The UK Supreme Court tends to show judicial restraint in politically sensitive matters, limiting its role in directly controlling government.

Give me an example of how the UK SC tends to show judicial restraint in politically sensitive matters.

• In R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2021), the Court upheld the discriminatory impact of Universal Credit changes, even though they disproportionately affected disabled individuals.

• This showed a reluctance to interfere in socio-economic policy, deferring to Parliament’s judgment.

Countering judicial restraint, how has the Court increasingly stepped into socio-political arenas (especially around welfare, immigration, and data privacy)?

• In R (DA & DS) v Work and Pensions Secretary (2019), the Court ruled that the benefits cap unlawfully discriminated against lone parents with young children, compelling change.

• And in Elan-Cane v Home Office (2021), the Court engaged in non-binary identity recognition—showing it’s willing to touch highly politicised social issues.