Case record
Country
United Kingdom
Court
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Year
2017
Areas of Law
Constitutional law, Administrative law, EU law
Citation
R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Miller I), Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2017)
R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ([2017] UKSC 5) is a landmark UK constitutional decision reaffirming . The Supreme Court held that the executive government cannot use Royal Prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 TEU to exit the European Union without prior authorization by an Act of Parliament.
Following the 2016 UK Brexit referendum, the UK Government intended to exercise Royal Prerogative powers under foreign affairs treaty-making powers to give notice under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without seeking formal parliamentary approval. Investment manager Gina Miller and others challenged the government, arguing that triggering Article 50 would irrevocably strip citizens of statutory rights granted by the European Communities Act 1972.
Royal prerogative vs. / EU departure
2016 EU Referendum Act text, European Communities Act 1972, Article 50 TEU, and formal cabinet operational records.
The Government argued that treaty making and withdrawal fall within the Crown's inherent executive prerogative powers. Miller argued that executive prerogative cannot alter domestic law or strip statutory rights conferred by Parliament.
By an 8:3 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that an Act of Parliament was legally required before the government could trigger Article 50.
The Court held that is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Prerogative powers cannot be used to extinguish rights created by statutory legislation. Leaving the EU would fundamentally alter the UK's legal sources, requiring parliamentary enactment.
Confirmed that executive royal prerogative cannot alter domestic statutory rights, requiring explicit Parliamentary authorization for major constitutional statutory changes.
Confirmed that executive royal prerogative cannot alter domestic statutory rights, requiring explicit Parliamentary authorization for major constitutional statutory changes.
Beyond borders
Comparative analysis has not yet been prepared for this case. Request one below.
Ask the editorial team to read this judgment against another legal system.
The circle
One thread for this judgment. Replies stay with the case, so the discussion reads as a single conversation rather than a feed.
Community guidelines
Judgment poll