# data[].attributes.body
This case is a clear example of the Supreme Court having power over the government by ruling that the proroguing of parliament in 2019 was ‘unlawful’ as it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions

# data[].attributes.body
This case proved that the Supreme Court won’t tolerate the government trying to abuse key principles of the HRA by applying retrospective legislation to circumvent an ultra vires judgement.

# data[].attributes.body
This case shows that although the HRA can protect protects UK citizens in the UK it does not extend to those in combat situations.  It this case the Supreme Court ruled in in favour of the government.

# data[].attributes.body
This case proves that the government has to comply with the HRA.  The outcome of this case proved the importance of the HRA in protecting a right to a fair trial. The government was trying to say this right didn’t exist in relation to matters of national security but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.  

# data[].attributes.body
This case proves that the rulings of the Supreme Court respect the roles of the other branches of government.. In this case it was clear that the Supreme Court respected the need for Parliament to finishing legislating properly on the issue before, as Lord Neuberger described,  ‘poking their noses into what’s going on.’

# data[].attributes.body
This case is a clear example of the Supreme Court having power over the government by ruling that they had acted ultra vires by claiming they had the ability to leave the EU through prerogative powers alone.

# data[].attributes.body
The outcome of this case shows that the Supreme Court can and does rule against the government if they decide that they have acted ultra vires.  In this case Iain Duncan Smith’s department had operated ultra vires by publishing regulations in 2011 that went beyond the authority given by Parliament in the Jobseekers Act (1995). 

# data[].attributes.body
This case establishes that EU law takes precedence over statute law in the areas we were signed up to and therefore the Supreme Court can force Parliament to disapply an act that conflicts with EU law.  