Honeycomb-Foster, Matt (25 September 2019). "Attorney General slaps down Jacob Rees-Mogg over claim Supreme Court launched 'constitutional coup' ". PoliticsHome. Archived from the original on 8 December 2019 . Retrieved 27 September 2019.

Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951), a High Court of Australia case which held that a law forcefully dissolving the Communist Party of Australia violated the Constitution of Australia's provisions on the separation of powers. Prorogation". Parliament of the United Kingdom. Archived from the original on 17 June 2019 . Retrieved 12 September 2019. Walker, Peter; Elgot, Jessica (18 July 2019). "MPs pass amendment seeking to thwart no-deal Brexit prorogation". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 July 2019 . Retrieved 25 September 2019.Marbury v. Madison (1801), a U.S. Supreme Court case which held that the judiciary was entitled and obliged to undertake judicial review of the laws. It turns out the founders of this viral sensation — the infamous dead-again-born-again Phoenix of YouTube Logan Paul, and controversial at times rapper-slash-boxer-slash-influencer KSI — knew something about marketing that even seasoned MBAs from Wharton forget: scarcity drives demand. And in this case, scarcity drives a brand to be a household name. Craig, Robert (31 October 2019). "Written evidence" (PDF). House of Lords Constitution Committee. FPA (13). Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 October 2019 . Retrieved 23 December 2019. For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such an exceptional course. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1984), which held that the royal prerogative was subject to judicial review.

Supreme Court: Ex-PM's lawyer argues against prorogation". BBC News. 19 September 2019. Archived from the original on 23 January 2020 . Retrieved 24 September 2019. Surely this must be the new Pokemon Go,” you and I’m sure millions of others witnessing these mad dashes across the country think to themselves.Is the question of whether the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen was lawful justiciable in a court of law?

The Court placed its analytical emphasis on effect/impact rather than improper motive and thus did not have to grapple with the thorny issue of bad faith. This has been described as a potential “elision of review on reasonableness and scope-of-power-grounds” ( Prof. Mark Elliott). How this approach might affect future judicial review cases is difficult to predict, as this case was in many ways a “one-off”, as Lady Hale put it. No reasonable justification Helm, Toby; Stewart, Heather (24 August 2019). "Boris Johnson seeks legal advice on five-week parliament closure ahead of Brexit". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 24 August 2019 . Retrieved 25 September 2019.

Bowcott, Owen (11 September 2019a). "English judges explain decision to reject prorogation challenge". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 4 December 2019 . Retrieved 24 September 2019. In the case of Prime Hydration, we see word of mouth (or digital word of mouth) resonate with more speed than COVID at a super-spreader event. Don’t believe me? Here’s the at-home rapid test: a decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such an exceptional course.”[50]