LONDON – The British Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson illegally terminated parliament, striking him one more blow and pushing the nation's policies to further turmoil, just a month before Britain left the European Union.
The court unanimously held that the suspension of Parliament until 14 October was invalid and that legislators were still in session and could continue the debate on Brexit, which Mr Johnson had short-circuited when he asked the Queen to suspend or propose Parliament in for five weeks.
The ruling delivered legal and political unrest in Britain, where the courts have historically evaded politics and where, unlike the United States, there has been little precedent for judicial review of government decisions. This record has prompted political and legal analysts to speculate that the court may decide that it has no power to rule on the prime minister's actions or may take a mixed decision.
The president of the court, Lady Hale, spoke before the 11-judge panel hearing the case: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to proclaim Parliament is illegal, as it has led to the denial or obstruction of Parliament's ability to perform its constitutional functions without a reasonable justification. "
" The Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty was illegal, invalid and had no effect, "she added. "Parliament has not been prophesied."
House Speaker John Berkov, who presides over the debate, said the House would meet on Wednesday – nearly three weeks earlier than the schedule Mr. Johnson had set.  While showing no indication that he had been punished by the governing, Mr Johnson did not rule out suspending Parliament again, but did not specify when. "I strongly disagree with this decision of the Supreme Court," he told reporters in New York, where he attended the United Nations General Assembly.
"I think the most important thing is to get on and deliver Brexit on October 31, and clearly the applicants in this case are determined to try to thwart it," he added.
Mr. Johnson has suffered tremendous legal and political defeats since he became Prime Minister in July. He lost consecutively to parliamentary votes, lost his majority in the House of Commons, and lost the support of some members of his Conservative Party – including his own brother.
A new threat emerged over the weekend when the Sunday Times of London reported that when Mr Johnson was mayor of London, his office targeted government subsidies and sought spots in the business delegations of an entrepreneur, a young woman whose apartment she frequently visited during business hours.
This month, an English court ruled that the judiciary could not decide how or why Mr Johnson stopped Parliament. Days later, however, Scotland's highest civil court ruled that the suspension was an illegal effort to spur the debate before the October 31 Brexit date, which Mr Johnson had promised to meet, even if the UK and Brussels did not agree on the terms .  On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Johnson's action was unfounded and that his motive was irrelevant.
The judges "reaffirmed Parliament's right and obligation to convene at this crucial time to review the executive branch and to keep ministers accountable," Mr Berkov said. "As the epitome of our parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons must be convened immediately."
Jeremy Corbin, leader of the opposition Labor Party, said the court had documented "contempt for democracy and abuse of power" by Mr Johnson , adding that "it will request the Parliament's withdrawal." At the party's annual conference, Mr. Corbin was due to deliver his big speech on Wednesday, but instead delivered it on Tuesday afternoon.
"This has not been selected. The Prime Minister must now resign," he told party members, urging Johnson's chants. "
The timing of Parliament's return is double bad for Mr Johnson, conservatives are scheduled to hold their annual conference early next week to show the party's politics ahead of any general elections. Unless the Prime Minister succeeds in gathering the unlikely majority to suspend Parliament again, this event may face parliamentary procedures.
Mr. Johnson will interrupt his trip to New York and fly back to London on Tuesday after meeting with his office by phone, government officials said.
As a practical matter, it was not clear how far the decision would immediately change the government's approach to Brexit. In the days before they were scattered, members of the House of Commons passed a law – because of the fierce opposition of the prime minister – to prohibit Mr Johnson from pursuing Brexit without a deal.
But in symbolic terms, the court's decision was a fierce reproach for the prime minister. He raised the question of whether he had misled Queen Elizabeth II, asking her to prophesy Parliament. And it added to the notion that his conservative government was guiding Britain's most sacred political conventions in its jealousy to pull the country out of Europe.
Mr. Johnson insisted he was trying to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with Brussels. But opposition politicians and European Union officials say he is just going through the motives for attracting his support in Britain, preparing to blame the bloc when nothing has worked.
Twice this month, he asked Parliament to call a short election, and twice he was far from necessary for two-thirds approval. The Labor Party backed the election out of fear that Mr Johnson would schedule it before October 31, hoping to use a runoff victory to push Brexit without a deal.
The Supreme Court's ruling on Tuesday, which came after three days of televised oral argument, was eagerly awaited in the UK because of its political and legal implications.
"We're in uncharted territory," says James Grant, a senior law professor at King's College London.
p. Grant said he thought it would be dangerous for the Supreme Court to go to an English court. The break, he argues, clearly deprives the House of Commons of the responsibility to examine government policy on Brexit, a matter of critical national importance.
But other legal experts worry that sustaining the Scottish Government could set a worrying precedent, opening the door to a form of judicial control 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 the sovereign parliament as the supreme law of the land. After the courts enter the political sphere and begin to resolve Parliament's actions, some legal analysts say there is no going back