Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)

Definition

Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) was a landmark UK Supreme Court case that determined whether the government could trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without parliamentary approval. This case highlighted the balance between royal prerogative powers exercised by the executive and the need for parliamentary sovereignty, establishing that key constitutional changes require legislative consent.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court's decision in Miller was delivered on January 24, 2017, and concluded with an 8-3 majority ruling.
2. The court ruled that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK law and rights, which necessitated an act of Parliament.
3. The case emphasized that while the government has royal prerogative powers, these powers cannot be used to undermine parliamentary sovereignty.
4. The ruling clarified the legal status of Brexit proceedings and set a precedent for how significant constitutional matters must involve Parliament.
5. The case sparked widespread debate regarding the limits of executive power and the role of Parliament in major national decisions.

Review Questions

• How did Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union challenge the traditional understanding of royal prerogative?
  • Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union challenged the traditional understanding of royal prerogative by reinforcing that executive powers cannot unilaterally alter laws or rights without parliamentary involvement. The ruling clarified that triggering Article 50 would lead to significant legal changes requiring legislative approval, thus establishing a check on executive authority and emphasizing parliamentary sovereignty as a core principle in UK constitutional law.
• Discuss the implications of the Miller case for future interactions between Parliament and the executive branch in the context of constitutional change.
  • The implications of the Miller case for future interactions between Parliament and the executive branch are profound. By establishing that major constitutional changes require parliamentary approval, it set a precedent that could limit the government's ability to act independently in significant matters. This case could encourage greater scrutiny and involvement from Parliament in decisions that affect national rights and laws, potentially leading to more collaborative governance and increased accountability of the executive.
• Evaluate how Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union reflects broader tensions between executive power and democratic principles within UK governance.
  • Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union reflects broader tensions between executive power and democratic principles by illustrating the ongoing struggle to maintain a balance between governmental authority and parliamentary oversight. The decision emphasized that while the government possesses certain prerogative powers, those powers are not absolute when they threaten fundamental democratic principles like parliamentary sovereignty. This tension underscores a critical aspect of UK governance, where constitutional conventions must adapt to protect democratic values amidst evolving political landscapes.

Related terms

Royal Prerogative: Historical powers held by the monarch that have been transferred to the government, allowing the executive to make decisions without parliamentary approval in certain areas.

Parliamentary Sovereignty: The principle that Parliament has the supreme legal authority in the UK and can create or end any law without interference from other institutions.

Article 50: The provision in the Treaty on European Union that outlines the process for a member state to withdraw from the EU, requiring notification and negotiation of exit terms.