UK Supreme Court declared Boris Johnson’s actions unlawful. What happens next?

The British Supreme Court on Tuesday demolished Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s case for sending lawmakers home during the run-up to the Oct 31 Brexit deadline, setting the stage for Parliament to return almost three weeks earlier than expected.

It was a devastating ruling for the government, but the consequences for Johnson’s deeply troubled plans for leaving the European Union are not yet clear.

Britain, already mired in uncertainty about the Brexit process, was plunged into fresh confusion about what will happen when lawmakers return to their seats.

— How did we get here?

Johnson announced in late August that he would suspend, or prorogue, Parliament for five weeks at the height of the Brexit crisis — a move that was condemned as an anti-democratic outrage, both by the opposition and by some lawmakers in his own Conservative Party.

The government said it needed time to prepare for a fresh legislative session, starting with a speech from Queen Elizabeth II on Oct 14, but lawmakers suspected the true motive was to keep them from interfering with Johnson’s plan to complete Brexit by Oct 31, with or without a deal outlining future relations with Brussels.

Parliament was eventually suspended Sept 10, but the legal contests had already begun.

Lawmakers agitated for an early return to Parliament, fearing that if the suspension were allowed to stand there would be little to stop Johnson from sending lawmakers home a second time to achieve his hard-line Brexit plans.

A Scottish court said Johnson had acted unlawfully, while an English court declined to intervene, sending the dispute to the Supreme Court.

In a landmark decision Tuesday, the high court cleared the way for lawmakers to get back to work nearly three weeks before Johnson had wanted them to reconvene.

— When and how will Parliament reconvene?

After the ruling, John Bercow, speaker of the House of Commons, and Lord Norman Fowler, speaker of the House of Lords, wasted no time in arranging for Parliament to resume its business Wednesday.

Speaking to reporters shortly after the court ruling was announced, Bercow said that lawmakers would return to the Commons at 11:30am Wednesday. Lord Fowler said on Twitter that the Lords would resume at 3pm.

Bercow, who has been a vocal opponent of Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament, said he welcomed the court’s “unambiguous decision” and noted that he had been in touch with party leaders to inform them that business would resume.

Johnson planned to hurry back to London from New York, where he has been attending the United Nations General Assembly, and officials said he would fly back Tuesday night, rather than Wednesday morning.

Bercow said Parliament would skip a session of prime minister’s questions that is usually held Wednesdays but added, “There will be full scope for urgent questions for ministerial statements and for applications for emergency debates.”

Had the suspension been upheld, it would have meant that Parliament’s return in October would have been a new legislative session and that any leftover bills would die. Johnson scheduled a queen’s speech Oct 14 to lay out the government’s agenda for the new session, which then would have been subject to days of debate, leaving even less time for Brexit.

Instead, the Supreme Court ruling means the suspension never happened, so the old legislative session is still underway, and bills that were on the table can continue through the approval process. The queen’s speech and the formal introduction of the government’s agenda are on hold.

Johnson could attempt once again to prorogue Parliament, schedule a queen’s speech and start a new parliamentary session, said Charles Brasted, a partner and head of the public law and policy practice at the firm Hogan Lovells.

“But he would have to give cogent and lawful reasons for doing so,” Brasted said, “and it is highly unlikely that it could be of anything like the length previously intended.”

Speaking to reporters in New York, Johnson said there was a “good case for getting on with the queen’s speech anyway, and we will do that,” but it was not clear if he meant before or after Oct 31.

c.2019 The New York Times Company