Twice this month, he asked Parliament to call a snap election, and both times he fell far short of the two-thirds approval he needed. The Labour Party balked at supporting an election out of fear that Mr. Johnson would schedule it before Oct. 31, in the hopes of using a victory at the polls to push through a no-deal Brexit.
The Supreme Court decision on Tuesday, which came after three days of televised oral arguments, had been eagerly anticipated in Britain because of its political and legal ramifications.
“We’re in uncharted territory,” said James Grant, a senior lecturer in law at King’s College London.
Dr. Grant said he believed that it would have been dangerous for the Supreme Court to side with the English court. The suspension, he argued, clearly deprived the House of Commons of its responsibility to scrutinize the government’s policy on Brexit, an issue of critical national importance.
But other legal experts worry that upholding the Scottish ruling could set a troubling precedent, opening the door to a form of judicial review that is widely accepted in the United States, which has a codified Constitution and a Supreme Court that actively interprets it.
Britain, by contrast, relies on an unwritten set of traditions and conventions that have treated a sovereign Parliament as the supreme law of the land. Once the courts venture into the political sphere and begin passing judgment on Parliament’s actions, some legal analysts say, there is no going back.
Boris Johnson’s Suspension of Parliament Was Unlawful, U.K. Supreme Court Rules – The New York Times