Miller Cases

Definition

The Miller Cases refer to a series of significant legal challenges in the UK regarding the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, particularly in relation to the exercise of executive power. These cases, notably Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) and Miller II (2019), highlight how the courts can intervene when parliamentary processes are threatened or when executive actions appear to overstep legal boundaries, reinforcing the principle that the law applies equally to all, including government bodies.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The first Miller case challenged the government's authority to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without parliamentary approval, emphasizing that significant constitutional changes require parliamentary involvement.
2. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Miller I that the government could not use its prerogative powers to bypass Parliament, affirming the importance of parliamentary sovereignty.
3. In Miller II, the court dealt with issues surrounding the prorogation of Parliament, concluding that it was unlawful as it effectively prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions during a critical period.
4. These cases underscored the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law by ensuring that executive actions remain within legal limits and do not infringe upon Parliament's authority.
5. The outcomes of the Miller Cases have had lasting implications for UK constitutional law, reinforcing the principle that executive powers cannot be exercised without proper parliamentary oversight.

Review Questions

• How do the Miller Cases illustrate the tension between parliamentary sovereignty and executive power?
  • The Miller Cases highlight a significant tension between parliamentary sovereignty and executive power by demonstrating how courts can intervene when executive actions threaten parliamentary authority. In Miller I, the court ruled that triggering Article 50 required parliamentary approval, emphasizing that only Parliament can make decisions that affect constitutional matters. This ruling reinforced the idea that while the government holds executive powers, these powers must be exercised within the framework established by Parliament.
• Discuss how the rulings in Miller I and II impact the future relationship between Parliament and the executive in the UK.
  • The rulings in Miller I and II have profound implications for the future relationship between Parliament and the executive in the UK. By asserting that significant constitutional changes require parliamentary involvement, these cases established a precedent that limits unilateral action by the government. This reinforces a system of checks and balances where Parliament must be engaged in critical decisions, thereby promoting accountability and preventing overreach by executive powers in democratic governance.
• Evaluate how the Miller Cases have contributed to the evolution of judicial oversight within UK constitutional law.
  • The Miller Cases have significantly contributed to the evolution of judicial oversight within UK constitutional law by establishing a more proactive role for courts in reviewing executive actions. These cases affirm that while Parliament is sovereign, it is also subject to legal scrutiny to ensure it operates within its own rules. The decisions not only clarified the limits of prerogative powers but also solidified judicial review as an essential mechanism for upholding democratic principles, ensuring that government actions adhere to legal standards and respect parliamentary sovereignty.

Related terms

Parliamentary Sovereignty: The principle that Parliament has the supreme legal authority in the UK, allowing it to create or end any law without being overridden by other institutions.

Judicial Review: The process by which courts examine the actions of public bodies and assess whether they are lawful, ensuring adherence to statutory provisions and constitutional principles.

Prerogative Powers: These are ancient powers historically held by the monarch but now exercised by government ministers, including decisions related to foreign affairs and national security.