At the height of the Brexit crisis, the prorogation has been ruled illegal. The first legal question the British Supreme Court had to resolve was if the Prime Minister's decision – exploiting residual, royal prerogative powers – was "justiciable" and could then be subjected to scrutiny by the courts. With the English high court declining to intervene, the Scottish appeal court concluded that judges did have legal authority to act.
Thanks to theguardian.com, we know that lawyers for the Scottish claimants and for the business woman and campaigner Gina Miller argued that, Johnson's suspension of parliament was motivated by an "improper purpose" – namely avoiding parliamentary control over his policies.
Typically, the justices are viewed as well out of their element entering into such a politically sensitive area, which was legally "no man's land" for them. Constitutionally speaking, the courts entering into this realm is "an ill-defined minefield that the courts are not properly equipped to deal with."
Even though heavy rains were falling, the first members of the public queued outside for seats in the supreme court at 5:20am on Tuesday. They were anxious to be present for this historic decision.
The president of the supreme court, Lady Hale, was in charge of reading out the verdict. Unusually, no body from the parties were given advance copies of the judgment due to the sensitive and unprecedented nature of the situation. Just 7 of the 11 justices who heard the case were present in court this morning.
The basic gist of the decision is that the prorogation was "unlawful, void and of no effect". That means parliament has not been prorogued right before such a difficult time as the Brexit crisis. It is up to the speaker to decide what happens next.
At the time of writing, Bercow says parliament must meet without delay, as judges rule prorogation unlawful.