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

Definition

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is a landmark Supreme Court case from 2017 that ruled the UK government could not trigger Article 50, starting the process of leaving the EU, without parliamentary approval. This case highlighted the constitutional significance of parliamentary sovereignty and the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court's decision was reached by a majority of 8 to 3, affirming that the government could not bypass Parliament in initiating Brexit.
2. This ruling reinforced the idea that important constitutional changes require parliamentary involvement, highlighting checks on executive power.
3. The case was significant in clarifying the relationship between UK law and EU law, especially regarding how domestic law needs to be followed during international negotiations.
4. The court's decision was rooted in established legal principles, emphasizing that ministers cannot change domestic law by exercising prerogative powers alone.
5. Miller's case became a pivotal point in discussions around Brexit, illustrating tensions between different branches of government and public sentiment.

Review Questions

• How did R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union challenge the powers of the UK government?
  • The case challenged government powers by asserting that triggering Article 50 required parliamentary approval, thus preventing ministers from acting unilaterally. This emphasized parliamentary sovereignty, showing that significant constitutional changes must involve legislative consent. The ruling reinforced checks on executive power, demonstrating that even in matters of national importance like Brexit, proper legal procedures must be followed.
• Discuss the implications of Miller's ruling for the relationship between Parliament and the government in the context of constitutional law.
  • Miller's ruling underscored the importance of parliamentary sovereignty within constitutional law, reiterating that Parliament must be involved in decisions impacting fundamental legal rights. This case illustrated how judicial review can serve as a mechanism to hold the government accountable for its actions, ensuring that any attempt to change laws or policies does not occur without legislative oversight. As such, it reaffirmed the delicate balance of power between Parliament and the executive branch.
• Evaluate how R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union reflects broader themes in UK constitutionalism regarding separation of powers and judicial independence.
  • R (Miller) reflects critical themes in UK constitutionalism by illustrating how judicial independence serves as a check on governmental authority while maintaining the separation of powers. The Supreme Court's intervention highlighted its role in ensuring that both Parliament and government adhere to constitutional norms. By reinforcing parliamentary sovereignty against executive overreach, this case demonstrated how independent judiciary mechanisms protect democratic processes and uphold the rule of law within a constitutional framework.

Related terms

Parliamentary Sovereignty: The principle that Parliament has the supreme legal authority in the UK, allowing it to create or end any law, and that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament.

Judicial Review: The power of the courts to examine the actions of public bodies and ensure they comply with the law, protecting citizens from unlawful decisions.

Article 50: A provision in the Treaty on European Union that outlines the process for a member state to withdraw from the European Union.