rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty essay

What is the Human Rights Act?

• What rights do I have?
• Where do my rights apply?
• What duties do organisations have?
• Where do organisations' duties apply?
• The European Convention on Human Rights
• Legislation & Explainers
• Human Rights Act in real life
• Easy Read hub
• Our programmes
• Our policy projects
• Lived experience
• Training for individuals & communities
• Training for public bodies
• Training enquiry
• Training & Events
• Our previous events
• Get involved
• Why Our Human Rights Act Matters
• Blog Series: Special Educational Needs & Disability Services

Separation of Powers, Parliamentary Sovereignty & the Rule of Law

This short guide explains what the concepts listed below mean and how they relate to our Human Rights Act:

• the constitution
• the separation of powers
• parliamentary sovereignty
• the rule of law

What is a constitution?

A constitution is the established principles and rules for how a state is run. The state is the legal name given to a territory or country. A constitution can be written down in one single law, contained in lots of different laws and documents, or established principles, or a combination; each state will have different constitutions. A constitution explains the rules on how the three parts of the state (usually called the branches of state) should work together.

This is important to make sure that no one part of the state such as the Government has unchecked power.  

“A constitution puts limits on the 3 parts of the state, balancing them all to work well, and sets out the rights of citizens which these branches need to respect.”

The three branches of the state are explained in detail later, but they are:

• parliament (the legislature)
• courts (judiciary) and
• government (executive).

The UK’s constitution

The UK does not have a single written constitution. This means that there is no one document that contains all of the rules and principles. Instead, the UK’s constitution is found through laws passed by Parliament and rules established through practices across hundreds of years, and principles established in court decisions (also known as the common law.)

The Human Rights Act is one of the laws that form part of the UK’s constitution. It exists to set out the rights of each person in the UK and the responsibilities of all the branches of state. It is a crucial part of the UK’s constitution because it sets out the rules by which the state should treat people; with dignity, respect and without discrimination.

Not having a single written constitution in the UK means that it can be harder to understand as there’s not one document that sets all the rules for the state. It also means that it can be easier to change the rules, which can be both a good or a bad thing depending on what these changes are and your opinion of what’s good and bad. Changes to the constitution have included:

• the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords (hereditary peers are members of the Lords based on their birth and used to be able to pass this on to children upon their death).
• introduction of the Human Rights Act
• devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which set up parliaments/assemblies and governments for each nation.
• creation of the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the UK.

UCL, a university, have a good guide on the UK’s constitution which we have used to help explain it.

What is the separation of powers?

The separation of powers is an idea which is fundamental to how the UK works. It is about having specific and separate powers and functions between the three branches of state. This is supposed to help keep these three branches independent and accountable, by making sure no one part is too powerful.

The three branches of state are:

The legislature makes the laws.

In the UK, the legislature is Parliament, which is mainly the House of Commons (which MPs are elected to) and the House of Lords (which is made up of peers). Both the “houses” of parliament will debate proposals for laws, look at what changes should be made, and pass or reject laws.  When a law is passed, the Crown (currently the Queen) gives it royal assent to make it official. This is ceremonial, as the monarch does not refuse to make laws passed by Parliament official.

Parliament also carries out “scrutiny” work, which examines and challenges the work of the Government. This might be through debates, questions or committees.

We have devolution in the UK, so the legislature also includes the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. These parliaments and assemblies have been given law-making powers by the Houses of Parliament.

The executive is responsible for creating policy, putting proposals for laws to the legislature, and putting laws into effect. We call this the government.

In devolved nations (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) the executive includes the First Ministers and governments of the devolved nations.

The judiciary decides whether laws are being followed or if they have been made properly. This is done through a system of courts and tribunals.

In the UK, the judiciary is made up of the judges and officers of the courts of law. These are overseen by the Supreme Court,  the highest court in the UK . The courts in the UK can decide on conflicts between state bodies, between the state and individuals and between individuals. In the UK we have 3 legal systems; one each for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The Supreme Court is the top court for all these systems.

Why is the idea of separation of powers important?

It is important that these branches of government are separate so that one branch of government doesn’t hold all (or too much) power. Each branch is therefore able to check on the other two branches to ensure that they are not overstepping their role. This means that there is a system of checks and balances. This should prevent each branch from abusing their power and helps ensure fairness in our system, making sure every part of the state has to play by the rules.

How does this work in the UK?

In the UK, we do not have a strict separation of powers. The branches of the state are closely linked. For example, the Prime Minister is both head of the executive (Government) and generally the leader of the majority party in the legislature (Parliament). This is because to form the government in the UK a political party has to win more local elections than other parties to have the most MPs. This means the leader of that party will be the head of the Government, the Prime Minister, and will usually have the most MPs who can vote to pass laws in parliament.

 There are still checks and balances in place to ensure that no branch of government has too much power. For example, the legislature can keep check on whether the executive is doing their job through things such as  Ministers questions, debates and investigations by committees . Prime Minister’s Questions is another example of this.

The judiciary (courts) are independent of both the executive and legislature. In the UK judges are not elected (unlike some other countries) so they are not accountable to voters. Judges are selected by the Judicial Appointments Commission, based on their merit; they are independent. People can start a legal case and ask a judge to look at whether the right laws and processes have been followed or broken. This includes bringing cases that are about the actions or decisions of the executive/government. This type of case is usually a judicial review. Judicial review is a tool to examine whether decisions by public bodies have been made in a lawful way, using the correct processes.

You can read our explainer on judicial review here

What is parliamentary sovereignty?

Parliamentary sovereignty is often said to be  ‘the defining principle of the British Constitution’

Parliamentary sovereignty means that  Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK . This means that:

• Parliament can create or get rid of any law
• the courts cannot overrule Parliament
• no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. This is because every Parliament must be as powerful as the ones before and after it.

The Human Rights Act does not limit parliamentary sovereignty. Section 19 of the HRA requires the government to make a statement on whether any laws they are proposing to parliament are compatible with HRA rights; but this is advisory only. This means that the government can say that a proposed law is not compatible with human rights but parliament could still pass this law.

This is because parliament has ultimate authority; the Human Rights Act does not change that. As noted above judicial review means a person or body asks the courts to look at a law (or decision or action) to decide if the right laws and processes have been followed. This includes whether the law, action or decision supports or breaches the rights in the Human Rights Act. If a court decides the Human Rights Act has not been followed or if a law passed by parliament does not support the rights in the HRA then the courts can issue a Declaration of Incompatibility under section 4 of the HRA. This is the court saying that it believes that a particular law is not compatible with the rights in the Human Rights Act. This does not automatically change the law. Instead, it is the responsibility of Parliament to decide whether to change the law or not. This demonstrates how parliamentary sovereignty works.  This means that these declarations are not a strike down power, but a way to flag human rights incompatibility of UK law .

What is the rule of law?

The rule of law is a principle that means that every person and body, whether public or private and including the state, are subject to the law. This means that no one is above the law. The rule of law requires that laws should be:

• publicly made
• widely communicated
• enforced equally
• consistent with human rights
• not retrospective (meaning they don’t go back and change the rules for events that have already happened and then hold people/bodies to account for those events now, according to the new rules) and
• that any disputes about the law should be decided independently

The rule of law means that people can have certainty on what the law is, access that law, and seek accountability when the rules may not have been followed. This includes accountability where the executive/government may have overstepped the mark, and courts play an important role in helping people seek justice and ensure that the rule of law is applied.

The rule of law and our Human Rights Act

Our Human Rights Act is an essential part of the rule of law in the UK, it “brings rights home”, by taking 16 of the fundamental human rights in the European Convention on Human Rights and putting them into our law here in the UK. This means that individuals can challenge the government, including local government and public authorities and services without having to go to the Court in Strasbourg, France. You can read BIHR’s explainer on the ECHR  here .

The Human Rights Act puts legal duties on the state to respect, protect and fulfil our rights. This legal duty must be met at all times, especially during times of crisis. Our Human Rights Act helps to ensure accountability so that no one, including the Government, is above the law. It is our Human Rights Act which says that the state must not treat us in an inhuman or degrading way (Art 3); that our private and family life must be respected (Art 8), our liberty (Art 5) and our right to be free from discrimination (art 14). It is important to note that whilst the rights come from the Convention, they are now applied here at home, and it is the Human Rights Act (not the Convention) which creates the legal duties for people in the UK to hold government and public bodies to account.

The courts also have an essential role due to the Human Rights Act. They must interpret laws as being compatible with the Human Rights Act and if this cannot be done, they can make a declaration of incompatibility. However, as mentioned, this declaration does not change the law. Parliament is the one who decides whether to change laws to ensure that they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Watch our video on the Rule of Law

Related topics

Find out more about human rights law.

Find out about the Human Rights Act 1998 and how it applies across the UK.

What is universality?

Read our explainer on the principle of universality and how human rights apply to everyone.

Whats in the European Convention on Human Rights?

A section-by-section guide to the ECHR.

Stay up-to-date

Get our newsletter

Get monthly updates on UK human rights law and our work, resources and events sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up now

Relation Between Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law

Cite this chapter.

• A. V. Dicey K.C., Hon. D.C.L.  

546 Accesses

6 Altmetric

The sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of the law of the land—the two principles which pervade the whole of the English constitution—may appear to stand in opposition to each other, or to be at best only counterbalancing forces. But this appearance is delusive; the sovereignty of Parliament, as contrasted with other forms of sovereign power, favours the supremacy of the law, whilst the predominance of rigid legality throughout our institutions evokes the exercise, and thus increases the authority, of Parliamentary sovereignty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1979 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Dicey, A.V. (1979). Relation Between Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. In: Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17968-8_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17968-8_14

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-0-333-05255-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-17968-8

eBook Packages : Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies Collection Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Is the rule of law subordinate to parliamentary sovereignty?

• by Lawprof Team

“The rule of law is of the first importance. But it is an integral part of the rule of law that courts give effect to Parliamentary intention. The rule of law is not the same as a rule that courts must always prevail, no matter what the statute says’ (Lord Hughes, R(Evans) v Attorney General (2015), dissenting). Discuss.

The case of Evans involved Prince Charles’ “Black Spider Memos”, where the attorney general exercised his veto power under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act to prevent the FOI request for disclosure of these memos, under the pretext that they would do harm to the public good by calling into question Prince Charles’ ability to serve as monarch. This veto power had been exercised in light of the Upper Tribunal’s order for the release of the letters, who had taken the view that Charles’ role as heir apparent was not sufficient public interest justification for withholding this information. The government disagreed with the view of the Upper Tribunal and sought to override it via its Veto Power.

The Supreme Court held by a 5-2 majority that the Attorney General’s use of veto power was unlawful, with the plularity consisting of Lords Neuberger, Reed and Kerr pointing to contravention to two rule of law principles, both of which will be discussed shortly.

Introduction

This background information now affords this commentator a closer analysis of Lord Hughes’ dissenting judgement. At its heart, the decision in Evans involves the use of common law presumptions to shape statutory interpretation of section 53, and thus the constitutional propriety of judicial review . Lord Hughes is essentially challenging the majority’s election to read limitations into the statutory power of the Attorney General to veto the FOI request, on the pretext that such a reading to enable judicial review contradicts the constitutional doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. This evinces a constitutional showdown between the Rule of Law and Parliamentary Sovereignty, widely considered to be the two organizing constitutional principles of the United Kingdom’s constitution, whose mere co-existence create an uneasy compromise – the constitutional doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty holds that Parliament is supreme legislator, and not subject to the boundaries of the law, yet the Rule of Law might suggest otherwise.

As the key element of Lord Hughes’ dissent, the aforementioned conflict will shape the discussion at hand, which takes a two-factor approach.

“Rule of Law is of the First Importance”: From Liversidge to Evans

• “An integral part of the Rule of Law”: Parliament Against the Courts

Only through understanding what Lord Hughes means by: “The Rule of Law is of first importance” will we see how such a principle has come to challenge Parliamentary Sovereignty today. A walk through judicial history is in order.

Our story begins as one of judicial deference, where a majority decision such as Evans would have been uncalled for in the early 20 th century. The paradigmatic relic case to refer to is Liversidge v Anderson, which considered the power of the Secretary of State to detain individuals in the interest of public safety, and the question was whether Sir John Anderson had the requisite “reasonable cause to believe” that a detainment of one Robert Liversidge was in the interest of the public. Interestingly, this might be paralleled with the “reasonable grounds” which were required for an exercise of veto power in the more contemporaneous case of Evans. The judgements however, diverge. In Liversidge, the courts upheld Sir John Anderson’s detainment, a decision that today would be seen as the antithesis of the rule of law, by sanctioning a wide regime of executive detention. Academic commentary has described the decision in Liversidge as one where the UK’s “apex court bent over backwards … given that the majority’s analysis foreclosed any meaningful possibility of judicial supervision of the exercise of a highly draconian power”. Clearly, the rule of law was not of the first importance in 1942.

Contemporary times are different however, and this is reflected through the 2015 case of Evans , which involved a similar deliberation but was decided in radically different manner. How then, did we get here? The answer lies within the increasing force of common law presumptions in statutory construction, best embodied by Miller. “ Where background constitutional principles are strong, there is a presumption that Parliament intended to legislate in conformity with them”. These principles may be categorized into two categories (1) constitutional statutes and (2) the rule of law, the latter of which is the focus in this essay. In the case of Evans , Lords Neuberger, Reed and Kerr took such a background approach in statutory interpretation of the veto prevision in the FOI Act 2000. According to Lord Neuberger, were the Attorney General’s veto power allowed in this instance, it would “cut across two constitutional principles which (were) also fundamental components of the rule of law”. The two principles identified were as follows:

• A decision of a court is binding as between the parties (especially including the executive)
• Judicial review of the executive is fundamental to the rule of law

Following the rule of law principle of legality, contravention of constitutional fundamentals is only possible through “crystal clear” legislation by Parliament. Evans and Miller are not alone. In Pierson, Lord Steyn states “Unless there is the clearest provision to the contrary, Parliament must be presumed not to legislate contrary to the rule of law”. Finally, AXA General Insurance elaborates the position further. Not only does the principle of legality preclude Parliament overriding fundamental rights without intent expressed through precise lexicon, Parliament may also not confer on another body such power.

What Lord Hughes means then, is that the rule of law is of the first importance in statutory construction, and we have seen this manifested through the application of the principle of legality. The days of judicial timidity a la Liversidge are no more. Far from being timid, the rule of law is ready for a constitutional showdown, as we shall see.

“An Integral Part Of The Rule of Law”: Parliament Against the Courts

Unpacking the conflict between parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law.

Lord Hughes dissent cites Parliamentary Sovereignty being in opposition with the decision in Evans , bringing us to the center of the debate over whether common law presumptions in statutory constructions may be deemed constitutional practice.

To elucidate his dissent in greater detail, common law presumptions in statutory constructions are said to offend Parliamentary Sovereignty as the courts are reading limitations in statutes, which may not fall within the intent of Parliament, in effect limiting their legislative power through interpretation. This opposes the Orthodox/Diceyan conception of the constitution, where Parliament is the highest law-making authority in the UK and no person or body has the legal right to override Acts of Parliament except themselves.

Examining the Conflict through Ouster Clauses and Judicial Review

Mark Elliot describes ouster clauses as those Acts which “legislate statutory interpretation”, “shaping the judicial process whereby legislation is itself construed”. In Evans, the veto power contained in section 53 of the FOI Act 2000 may be characterized as an “ ex post ouster” , one which enables a non judicial authority such as the Attorney General to dispense with a judicial decision it does not agree with, in this case, the decision of the Upper Tribunal. Where fundamental human rights are concerned, ouster clauses essentially create conflict between Parliament and the Courts by preventing them from upholding such rights. As such, observing the behavior and judgement of the courts in the face of such odds are instructive in explicating the state of this judicial-legislative conflict. We might call these cases “Ouster Events”

The paradigmatic Ouster Event may be seen in the case of Anisminic , where it was stated in Section 4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 that “The determination by the commission of any application made to them under this Act shall not be called in question in any court of law”. A total ouster. Despite the apparent lack of elbow room for judicial intervention, the majority judgement forcibly created such elbow room, by restricting the scope of the ouster clause to only those determinations that the Commission were entitled to make in the first place. In justifying the judgement, Lord Wilberforce emphasized that this involved “carrying out the intention of the legislature”, as the act of stipulating limits of the Commission implied that Parliament desired them to be judicially enforced. Similarly in the cases of Evans, AXA General Insurance, Miller and Pierson, justification for judicial intervention has also relied on the principle of legality, with judges careful not to deny Parliament the right to legislate unconstitutionally, if “crystal clear” ( Evans)  legislation or “clearest provisions” (Pierson) have been adopted by the legislature, implicitly affirming Parliamentary Sovereignty. Though it must be noted that Anisminic appears to be a high water mark, as the following cases did not involve total ouster.

At the moment then, Lord Hughes is theoretically correct. In navigating the tricky waters of Ouster Clauses, the courts are still referencing Parliamentary Intention as the basis for the rule of law principle of legality, and have been careful in their choice of words.

Does this quell talks of a judicial uprising against Parliamentary Sovereignty vis a vis the Rule of Law? Not quite. There are two reasons for this.

Parliamentary Sovereignty as a Garb

First, it should be noted that the aforementioned judgements might be cloaked in the garb of Parliamentary Sovereignty, but in practice, it is obvious that protecting legislative supremacy was not the driving factor of those decisions. That would be the rule of law, inferred through the multiple references to the principle of legality in the aforementioned cases , and the defendants’ contravention of other rule of law principles such as altering the “law of the land” in Miller, or Neuberger’s two principles in Evans. The status of Parliamentary Sovereignty as a garb was candidly illuminated by Lord Phillips, who gave evidence at the House of Commons shortly after stepping down as president of the Supreme Court. In describing the Anisminic case, He stated that “the court would [prefer to] say , ‘Parliament couldn’t possibly have meant that’, and then go on to assign an interpretation to the legislation that it couldn’t [linguistically] bear”.

Pandora’s Box

Second, Pandora’s Box has already been opened upon the courts departure from Liversidge . Mark Elliot rightly points out that we have seen rule of law principles fleshed out “with a degree of explicitness that is uncharacteristic of the jurisprudence of earlier generations”. The judges are becoming restless. In “ Law and Democracy” , Laws LJ has stated that “Parliamentary Sovereignty is conferred and so is constrained by higher order law”. This implies limitations on legislative sovereignty based on constitutional fundamentals such as the rule of law and separation of powers, and it should be stated that while he is in a minority, he is not alone. Further, Obiter dicta in the Jackson case provides some statements which are “interesting” indeed from a constitutional standpoint. Lord Steyn himself rejected the Diceyan conception of absolute parliamentary sovereignty as anachronistic, and considered a hypothetical situation where the judiciary may have to consider whether “even a sovereign Parliament” may not abolish judicial review through legislation. Baroness Hale herself echoed such sentiments, stating that “any attempt to subvert the rule of law” might be rejected.

Constitutional scholarship by Allan summarises this radical view: “Parliament is in fact not Sovereign, and that (the rule of law) which form grounds for common law presumptions are capable of restricting the authority of Parliament. While Allan does not represent the majority, and Lord Hughes is still theoretically correct, the judges and scholars are sharpening their pitchforks against the Diceyan camp.

Concluding Thoughts

A short letter to lord hughes.

This commentator has evaluated Lord Hughes’ statement against the wider backdrop of the UK’s constitution and found them to be correct. The rule of law is indeed important in statutory construction, and the courts as a whole have been reluctant to break free from the Orthodox/Diceyan view of legislative supremacy, instead electing to use Parliamentary Sovereignty as a garb to justify decisions which are truthfully grounded in the rule of law. Lord Hughes is conceptually correct, yet he finds himself in the minority camp for the 5-2 judgement in Evans, because he has elected to take a minimalist view with regards to common law presumptions. In light of the journey from Liversidge to Evans , this is an understandably cautionary approach, intended to serve as a bulwark against Bogdanor’s rapidly “changing constitution”.

Growing Pains: The UK’s Constitution

An analogy might be drawn between the Courts and an adolescent, who has grown and become more rebellious with the passage of time. That is the normal course of an adolescent finding his/her feet in life. In similar vein, judicial timidity in Liversidge has turned to challenge against Parliamentary Sovereignty in Ouster events, as judges have begun triangulating their decisions with considerations of constitutional fundamentals such as the rule of law. Far from being a constitutional abomination, this commentator believes that this is precisely what is required of the UK’s constitution. For this unwritten constitution to find its feet, conflict between competing ideologies of various constitutional fundamentals such as the rule of law and Parliamentary Sovereignty must occur and compromise established – this Raz-esque compromise is favourable in the interest of respecting plularity of opinion and defining boundaries which are shaped with time. Like growing up, the constitutional battle affords no dogmatic solution. That is the beauty of Griffith’s constitution, which is simply “what happens”.

Now out: model 1st class 🏆 examination answers from Oxford

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

4 Legislative Sovereignty and the Rule of Law

• Published: December 2001
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter challenges the assumption that legislative sovereignty is incompatible with the rule of law. The rule of law is first and foremost a political principle, an ideal or aspiration that may or may not be guaranteed by law. Most, if not all, common law jurisdictions treat the rule of law as a principle of common law, which unquestionably governs the decisions and actions of the executive and judicial branches of government. In addition, it is sometimes expressly mentioned in written constitutions, or regarded as implicit in them. Whether it is common law, constitutional, or both, the principle is sometimes said to govern the legislature as well as the other branches of government, and to be capable of overriding legislation. Even if legislative sovereignty is inconsistent with the rule of law, it might nevertheless be justified on the ground that in this case the rule of law is outweighed by the principle of democracy. This chapter also refutes the argument that bills of rights are required by the rule of law.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Help and information
• Comparative
• Constitutional & Administrative
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Environment
• Equity & Trusts
• Competition
• Human Rights & Immigration
• Intellectual Property
• International Criminal
• International Environmental
• Private International
• Public International
• IT & Communications
• Jurisprudence & Philosophy of Law
• Legal Practice Course
• English Legal System (ELS)
• Legal Skills & Practice
• Medical & Healthcare
• Study & Revision
• Business and Government
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Public Law Directions (2nd edn)

• New to this edition
• Guide to the online resources
• Table of cases
• Table of legislation
• 1. Introducing constitutions and public law
• 2. How the UK constitution has developed
• 3. The features and sources of the UK constitution
• 4. How the UK is organised
• 6. Parliamentary sovereignty
• 7. Separation of powers
• 8. Rule of law
• 9. Constitutional rights and principles
• 10. The Legislature: membership, privileges, and standards
• 11. The key functions of Parliament
• 12. The executive
• 13. The judiciary
• 14. Challenging government action
• 15. Introduction to judicial review
• 16. Judicial review: grounds and remedies
• 17. The Human Rights Act 1998
• 18. Human rights in action
• 19. Police powers

p. 123 6. Parliamentary sovereignty

• Anne Dennett Anne Dennett Senior Lecturer, University of Lincoln
• https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198870579.003.0006
• Published in print: 08 July 2021
• Published online: September 2021

This chapter focuses on parliamentary sovereignty. The term ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ is normally defined as the ‘legislative supremacy of Parliament’. Since the constitutional settlement brought about by the Bill of Rights 1689, the UK Parliament has had unchallenged authority to create primary law. Parliament’s legislative supremacy means, therefore, that there is no competing body with equal or greater law-making power and there are no legal limits on Parliament’s legislative competence. Parliament has broad legislative power but cannot make unchangeable statutes, and a current parliament can reverse laws made by a previous parliament. Nobody but Parliament can override Acts of Parliament. The Enrolled Bill rule requires that, if a Bill has passed through the House of Commons and House of Lords and received royal assent, the courts will not enquire into what happened before or during the legislative process.

• parliamentary sovereignty
• Bill of Rights 1689
• legislative supremacy
• UK Parliament
• law-making power
• legislative competence
• legislative power
• Acts of Parliament
• Enrolled Bill

You do not currently have access to this chapter

Please sign in to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Law Trove. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 12 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.66.14.133]
• 185.66.14.133

Characters remaining 500 /500

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Tension between Parliamentary sovereignty and Rule of Law

An underlying, and as yet unresolved, issue of the Jackson litigation was an irreconcilable tension over what ought to be the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution: Parliamentary Sovereignty or the rule of law.

Related Papers

Farrah Ahmed , Adam Perry

The British constitution is famously unentrenched: a law is not more difficult to alter or override simply because it is a law of the constitution. That may be about to change. In the largely overlooked 2012 case of H v Lord Advocate, the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the Scotland Act 1998 cannot be impliedly repealed due to its ‘fundamental constitutional’ status. These remarks were obiter dicta, but they reflect the considered view of the Supreme Court, and as such strongly suggest the path the law will take. Courts in the future are likely to treat constitutional statutes, like the Scotland Act, as susceptible to express repeal, but exempt from implied repeal. That would make constitutional statutes ‘quasi-entrenched'. In this article we argue that, as a judicial innovation, the quasi-entrenchment of constitutional statutes lacks a sound legal basis. Parliament can make its intention to repeal a constitutional statute clear without making it express, and judges cannot, on their own initiative, ignore Parliament's clear decision to repeal even a constitutional statute. We conclude by identifying three types of situations in which constitutional statutes should be recognised as having been impliedly repealed.

Adrian Smith

The primacy of law-making in the United Kingdom has been held with the legislature and in particular Parliament for over 460 years. It is founded in the twin doctrines of Parliamentary supremacy and separation of powers. Although today there are many scholars and other authorities which have questioned the clear distinction in the roles of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, and their roles in law making with regards to their primacy and function; despite all the criticisms, changes and amendments, it can be argued that the Parliament still bears the primary responsibility to make laws with the contribution of the other arms of Government.

peter lwana

The question of the contemporary status of parliamentary sovereignty is a significant and vexed one. The doctrine’s status in Scotland has been a vexed academic issue for centuries. It has been further problematized by the inception of the Scottish Parliament and the recent Scottish Independence Referendum. The central question of this work is: can Westminster abolish the Scottish Parliament unilaterally? This issue will be explored in five parts. The first section will consist of a broad discussion of sovereignty, focusing on the classical debates regarding Westminster’s sovereignty and the question of whether Scotland possessed a distinct tradition of popular sovereignty prior to entering the Union. The work will then examine the events of the 1980s and 1990s and argue that it represented a constitutional step change in Scotland. The work will then explore the constitutional and political meaning of referendums, before looking at the Canadian approach to accommodating constitutional change and compare it to the attitudes adopted by the Scottish and British supreme courts. Finally, the work will discuss the theories of constitutional unsettlement and constitutional moments. The central contention of this work is that, whilst a distinctly Scottish approach to sovereignty did not exist until the 1990s, the political rupture created by the Conservative government of the 1980s and 1990s acted as a constitutional moment, crystalized in the 1997 Referendum on Devolution, which politically entrenched the Scottish Parliament’s status in the Scottish and British constitutional orders. The 2014 Referendum confirmed the political necessity for recourse to popular sovereignty on profound constitutional issues. This, however, has not been reflected in law. Westminster retains the theoretical capacity to abolish the Scottish Parliament. In reality, this is an almost meaningless power, but the power cannot be removed without destroying parliamentary sovereignty itself. The state of constitutional unsettlement that the United Kingdom continues to exist in means that there is little hope for formal settlement of this issue, even taking into account the impending legislative confirmation of the Scottish Parliament’s political permanence.

ugonna obunike

Over the years, there has been a vast amount of literature by academic scholars debating the Diceyan orthodox view of parliamentary sovereignty. This has occurred as a result of the United Kingdom’s European Union membership, the Jackson landmark case, the common law and several other factors. These factors have placed pressure upon the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty which has led to it being questioned.

Sarah Cormican

Jack Bamfield

This undergraduate dissertation aims to explore the legal and political relationship between Britain and the European Union. The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom has traditionally been built upon the simplicity of two legal concepts: legislative supremacy and the rule of law. The accession into the European Community in 1973 saw a drastic alteration to the role of Britain’s legislature, having to accept shared supremacy with directly effective European treaties and directives. The dissertation addresses four crucial aspects of the relationship and the future possibility of a severance from the EU. Firstly, it will address the evolution of shared supremacy, taking into account a number of key cases that have sparked debate on the issue. Secondly, it will consider the possibility of withdrawal in light of the recent efforts by the Conservative Party to hold a referendum on membership, discussing the various procedural elements involved in such a measure. Thirdly, it will address the classical notion of Parliamentary Supremacy, and whether it still remains unqualified irrespective of EU membership. Finally, it will turn to the various other constitutional statutes or provisions that further dilute Parliamentary Supremacy. Here, I will consider the future possibilities of removing these qualifications where possible.

Jamie Dunne

Tracing through the Supreme Court’s judgments in Axa (2011), H v Lord Advocate (2012), and HS2 (2014), this article explores the evolution of the Scottish Parliament’s place within the UK’s uncodified constitution over the last five years. Ultimately it will be argued that the emergence of an increasingly autochthonous Scottish polity poses an increasing challenge to the orthodox interpretations of UK constitutional law at a key political turning point in British history.

Richard S Kay

The traditional doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament in the United Kingdom is being transformed. The change is the cumulative result of a series of legislative acts, judicial decisions, statements of officials and academic opinions. This paper is not directed to the extent or to the propriety of this change. It examines rather the process by which it has been effected. In most of the world, wholesale constitutional revision is an event. It takes place in a defined period of time and is the work of an identifiable group of people. The striking thing about the changes in the UK constitution is that they are almost universally regarded as arising from a series of uncoordinated events by different actors. The new constitution has not been designed; it has been revealed over time, the work of a “blind” sovereign. I survey these developments, contrast them with constitutional orthodoxy elsewhere and, finally, qualify the comparison by raising doubts about the accuracy of the standard model of constitution-making.

shani sandeepani

RELATED PAPERS

National Constitutions in European and Global Governance: Democracy, Rights, the Rule of Law

Theodora A Christou , Alison L Young

LADLI VENCATASAMY

Nicholas Villalta

(2015) UK Supreme Court Annual Review 157

Christopher Sargeant

Hemant K Chauhan

Toby McKinnon

Alan Greene

Rossana Delfino

Shaneil Shah

Rudo B Chinhara

[2015] Juridical Review 259

Kenneth Campbell

Alex Javdan

The Cambridge Constitutional History of the United Kingdom, edited by Peter Cane and Harshan Kumarasingham

Richard Bellamy

Oshin Belove

nalini naidoo

Review of Constitutional Studies

Vanessa MacDonnell

claire samlp

Vincent Kazmierski

Cristina Parau

Sukayna Khan

Veerle Heyvaert

Public Law (forthcoming)

Conor Crummey

Ubong S Elijah

Costas Kombos

Jack Simson Caird

PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge

John Magyar

federalismi.it

emma imparato , emma a. imparato

Cambridge Law Journal

Robert Thomas , Mark Elliott

Rowland Cole

Yannis Sygkelos

Graeme Cowie

Matthew M Shuck

Journal of Comparative Law

Jacob Meagher FRSA TEP

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Campus Protests A Few Graduations Are Disrupted by Protest, but Many Are Held as Planned

• Share full article

Here’s the latest on campus protests.

At the University of California, Berkeley, hundreds of soon-to-be graduates rose in their seats in protest, briefly disrupting their commencement. At Virginia Commonwealth University, about 60 graduates in caps and gowns walked out during Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s speech. At the University of Wisconsin, a handful of graduates stood with their backs to their chancellor as she spoke.

But after weeks of tumult on college campuses over pro-Palestinian protests, graduations on Saturday at several universities unfolded without major incident. Many who protested did so silently.

The University of Illinois, California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt , the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Texas at Austin are among the colleges holding their main commencement ceremonies today. Many had increased their security measures in anticipation of possible disruptions, or taken various measures including dismantling encampments, setting aside free speech zones, canceling student speeches and issuing admission tickets.

The University of Wisconsin said it had reached a deal with protesters to clear the encampment before Saturday’s commencement in return for meeting to discuss the university’s investments. At the University of Mississippi, where there had been a confrontation between counterprotesters who taunted and jeered a female Black student protester, there were no demonstrations and light security.

At Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, where the ceremony included more than 1,000 students, some students had objected to the appearance by Mr. Youngkin, a Republican, in part because he supported the dismantling of an encampment on campus. Late last month, 13 people, including six students, were arrested. A reporter in attendance at the graduation was not permitted to leave the auditorium to speak with the students who walked out.

On Saturday in Berkeley, Chancellor Carol Christ was met with boos when she began to speak, but there were louder cheers when she mentioned the pro-Palestinian encampment nearby and the protesters’ opposition to the violence in Gaza. “I too am deeply troubled by the terrible tragedy,” she said.

The ceremonies came after a week in which some colleges made arrests and cleared encampments of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. In recent days, authorities cleared tents at the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology . And officers were also called in to clear an encampment at the University of Arizona in Tucson, deploying “chemical munitions” in the process, hours before its graduation ceremony on Friday evening.

Here are other developments:

Arizona State University has banned a postdoctoral research scholar and faculty member from campus as it investigates a video that went viral depicting him confronting a woman in a hijab, the school said this week. In the video from May 5, the scholar can be seen cursing and getting in a woman’s face at a pro-Israel rally near the school’s Tempe campus .

Xavier University of Louisiana in New Orleans this week became the second school to rescind an invitation to Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The University of Vermont said last week that she would not be speaking there, agreeing to a demand from student demonstrators.

Arizona State University has put the chief of its campus police department on paid administrative leave. Complaints had been filed related to the chief’s actions in late April, when the campus police broke up a pro-Palestinian encampment and arrested dozens of people.

Faculty members at the University of California, Los Angeles, failed to come to a vote on Friday on whether to formally rebuke the school’s chancellor for his handling of the campus encampment, where pro-Palestinian demonstrators were attacked for hours last week without police intervention.

More than 2,800 people have been arrested at pro-Palestinian protests on U.S. campuses since April 18, according to New York Times tracking data .

Cynthia Howle and Dan Simmons contributed reporting.

— Shaila Dewan ,  Holly Secon and Leah Small

Arizona State bans a scholar from campus after a confrontation at a protest.

Arizona State University has banned a postdoctoral research scholar and faculty member from campus as it investigates a video that went viral depicting him confronting a woman in a hijab, the school said this week.

In the video from May 5, the scholar, Jonathan Yudelman, along with another unidentified man, can be seen cursing and getting in a woman’s face at a pro-Israel rally near the school’s Tempe campus .

It was unclear what occurred before the video, but at one point in the video Mr. Yudelman can be seen repeatedly advancing toward the woman who is wearing a hijab, and telling her — “I’m literally in your face, that’s right” — as she backs away from him.

The woman responds and tells him that he is disrespecting her religious boundaries to which Mr. Yudelman responds, “You disrespect my sense of humanity,” followed by a profanity.

Mr. Yudelman, who was a postdoctoral fellow at the university’s School of Civics, Ethics and Leadership , had earlier resigned from the position, effective June 30, according to a statement the school released on Wednesday. But the school said he was placed on leave on May 6, adding that he was no longer permitted to come to campus, teach classes or interact with students or employees.

“Arizona State University protects freedom of speech and expression but does not tolerate threatening or violent behavior. While peaceful protest is welcome, all incidents of violent or threatening behavior will be addressed,” the statement added.

Mr. Yudelman was interviewed on May 5 at the pro-Israel rally by Phoenix television station KPNX . In the clip , he stated that campuses across the country were being “taken over by supporters of terrorism,” and stated that Jewish students were being intimidated. “It was important to come out, show the broader community that there are people who stand against this,” he said.

Mr. Yudelman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

— Anna Betts

Advertisement

Here’s why antiwar protests haven’t flared up at Black colleges like Morehouse.

As President Biden prepares to give graduation remarks this month at Morehouse College in Atlanta, a prestigious historically Black institution, the White House is signaling anxiety about the potential for protests over the war in Gaza.

During a recent visit to Atlanta, Vice President Kamala Harris stopped to ask the Morehouse student government president about the sentiment on campus about the conflict, how students felt about Mr. Biden’s visit and what the graduating class would like to hear from him on May 19.

Then, on Friday, the White House dispatched the leader of its public engagement office and one of its most senior Black officials, Stephen K. Benjamin, to the Morehouse campus for meetings to take the temperature of students, faculty members and administrators.

The reasons for concern are clear: Nationwide demonstrations over the war and Mr. Biden’s approach to it have inflamed more than 60 colleges and universities , stoked tensions within the Democratic Party and created new headaches for his re-election bid.

Yet Mr. Biden appears to be entering a different type of scene at Morehouse.

While anger over the war remains palpable at Morehouse and other historically Black colleges and universities, these campuses have been largely free of turmoil, and tensions are far less evident: no encampments, few loud protests and little sign of Palestinian flags flying from dorm windows.

The reasons stem from political, cultural and socioeconomic differences with other institutions of higher learning. While H.B.C.U.s host a range of political views, domestic concerns tend to outweigh foreign policy in the minds of most students. Many started lower on the economic ladder and are more intently focused on their education and their job prospects after graduation.

At Morehouse — which has a legacy of civil rights protests and is the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s alma mater — discontent over the Gaza war has played out in classrooms and auditoriums rather than on campus lawns.

“This should not be a place that cancels people regardless of if we agree with them,” David Thomas, the Morehouse president, said in an interview on Thursday. Of Mr. Biden’s visit, he said, “Whether people support the decision or not, they are committed to having it happen on our campus in a way that doesn’t undermine the integrity or dignity of the school.”

Some students have held contentious meetings with university leaders and urged them to rescind Mr. Biden’s invitation, and a small group of faculty members has vowed not to attend commencement. Some alumni wrote a letter expressing worries that student protesters could be punished, noting Morehouse’s history of “celebrating student activists long after they have graduated.”

But the college might appear politically safer for the president to visit than many others. Morehouse is a custom-bound place where undergraduates traditionally do not step on the grass in the heart of campus until they receive their degrees. Alumni view commencement as a distinguished event not only for students but also for scores of family and community members — making it a less likely venue for a major disruption.

Mr. Biden chose to speak at Morehouse after the White House had received invitations from an array of colleges. It will be the third time in four years he has addressed graduates of a historically Black institution; he has also spoken at commencement for one military academy each year.

Among those lobbying Mr. Biden to come to Morehouse was Cedric Richmond, a member of the college’s class of 1995, who ran Mr. Biden’s public engagement office and is now a senior adviser at the Democratic National Committee .

Mr. Richmond, who has a nephew at Morehouse, predicted Mr. Biden would speak about the high expectations of the college’s alumni, promote his record of reducing Black unemployment and narrowing the racial wealth gap, and deliver familiar exhortations about perseverance.

Mr. Richmond does not think Mr. Biden will face protests.

“The Morehouse College graduation, at least as I remember it, is a very solemn event,” he said. “You have almost 500 African American males walking across that stage, whose parents and grandparents sacrificed and those students worked their butts off to, one, get into Morehouse, and two, to graduate. That’s a very significant day. And I’m just not sure whether students or protesters are going to interfere with that solemn moment.”

Vice President Harris, who graduated from Howard University, another historically Black institution, is engaged in her own virtual tour of such colleges. A congratulatory video she recorded will be played for graduates at 44 H.B.C.U.s; she is often introduced as a surprise guest and greeted with cheers.

In Atlanta last month, Ms. Harris asked the Morehouse student government president, Mekhi Perrin, what approach Mr. Biden should take in his address.

“I think really she was just trying to gain an idea of what exactly students’ issues were with his coming, if any at all,” Mr. Perrin said. “And what would kind of shift that narrative.”

Mr. Biden has been trailed by Gaza protesters for months. The last time he spoke at a four-year college campus was in January, when demonstrators interrupted him at least 10 times during a rally at George Mason University in Virginia.

Morehouse’s traditions are strong. Dr. King said it was a place where he had advanced his understanding of nonviolent protest and moral leadership — which current Morehouse students say they take seriously.

“I feel like the protests do need to come out, because if you don’t see students advocating for what they believe in, then the change that they’re advocating for will never come about,” said Benjamin Bayliss, a Morehouse junior. Looking toward the statue of Dr. King in front of the chapel named for the civil rights leader, he added, “You really feel the weight of what King did and the fire of the torch that he lit that we have to carry on.”

Yet even as some students feel compelled to protest, outside factors can shape their decisions. Roughly 75 percent of students at H.B.C.U.s, including 50 percent of Morehouse students, are eligible for the Pell Grant , a federal aid program for low-income students. More than 80 percent of Morehouse students receive some form of financial aid. In the Class of 2024, nearly a third of graduates will be the first in their family to receive a bachelor’s degree.

Some students at Black colleges also may decide against protesting because of family pressure , which amplifies the importance of securing their degrees.

“Your student body at Columbia is very different than the student body at, say, Dillard,” said Walter Kimbrough, who spent a decade as president of Dillard University, a historically Black institution in New Orleans. “It doesn’t mean that people aren’t concerned. But they understand that they have some different kinds of stakes.”

The stakes are also high for Mr. Biden, whose standing with Black voters has softened ahead of November’s presidential election. Young people are less enthusiastic about voting at all — partly because of Mr. Biden’s handling of the Gaza war, but also because they are unhappy with the choice between him and former President Donald J. Trump.

“I think it’s really just picking the lesser of two evils,” said Freddrell Rhea Green II, a Morehouse freshman. “Anything better than Donald Trump, a madman, a quote unquote tyrant, is better for me.”

“Joe Biden is probably a very nice person,” said Samuel Livingston, an associate professor of Africana studies at Morehouse. “But niceness is not the level of leadership that we need. We need ethical leadership. And continuing to support the aiding, abetting and the stripping of Palestinian land, from Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, is not ethical.”

Some students, like Auzzy Byrdsell, a senior studying kinesiology and journalism, support their classmates’ protests but fear a possible response from the police to a crowd of largely Black young men.

“Do we get tear-gassed?” said Mr. Byrdsell, the editor in chief of The Maroon Tiger, the school’s student newspaper. “Do we get arrested? That would not be the greatest look for a Morehouse College graduation.”

Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, a 1991 Morehouse alumnus, said that he hoped Mr. Biden would highlight his record and his agenda — but that there was little the president could say about the Gaza conflict to assuage his critics on campus.

“While what he says is important,” Mr. Warnock said, trying to put himself in the shoes of student protesters, “I think much more important is what he does in the future.”

Kitty Bennett contributed research.

— Maya King and Reid J. Epstein Maya King reported from Atlanta, and Reid J. Epstein from Washington.

Pennsylvania’s governor leans into the campus fight over antisemitism.

A few hours after Columbia University canceled its main commencement ceremony following weeks of pro-Palestinian student protests, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania was in his office in Harrisburg, taking stock of the ways he sees universities letting students down.

“Our colleges, in many cases, are failing young people,” he said in an interview this week. “Failing to teach information that is necessary to form thoughtful perspectives. They are willing to let certain forms of hate pass by and condemn others more strongly.”

Mr. Shapiro — the leader of a pre-eminent battleground state, a rising Democrat and a proudly observant Jew — has also emerged as one of his party’s most visible figures denouncing the rise in documented antisemitism after the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

And at a moment of growing Democratic anger and unease over how Israel is conducting its devastating military response, Mr. Shapiro, 50 — who has no obligation to talk about foreign policy — has not shied away from expressing support for the country while criticizing its right-wing government.

Plunging into a subject that has inflamed and divided many Americans carries risk for an ambitious Democrat from a politically important state. The politics around both the Gaza war and the protest movement are exceptionally fraught within the Democratic Party , and many of its voters and elected officials have become increasingly critical of Israel.

But Mr. Shapiro has been direct.

Asked if he considered himself a Zionist, he said that he did. When Iran attacked Israel last month, he wrote on social media that Pennsylvania “stands with Israel.”

When the University of Pennsylvania’s president struggled before Congress to directly answer whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated the school’s rules, Mr. Shapiro said she had failed to show “moral clarity.” ( She later resigned .) When opponents of the Gaza war picketed an Israeli-style restaurant in Philadelphia known for its falafel and tahini shakes, Mr. Shapiro called the demonstration antisemitic and showed up for lunch.

And as university officials have struggled to define where free speech ends and hate speech begins, a tension upending the final weeks of the school year, Mr. Shapiro has issued stern warnings about their responsibility to protect students from discrimination. The issue hits close to home: On Friday, police cleared an encampment of pro-Palestinian demonstrators off the campus of the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Shapiro had said it was “ past time ” for Penn to do so.

‘It should not be hard’

In the interview, Mr. Shapiro stressed that he did not believe all encampments or demonstrators were antisemitic — not “by any stretch.” But he suggested that on some campuses, antisemitic speech was treated differently than other kinds of hate speech.

“If you had a group of white supremacists camped out and yelling racial slurs every day, that would be met with a different response than antisemites camped out, yelling antisemitic tropes,” he said.

Law enforcement officials and advocacy groups have tracked a rise in antisemitic, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab acts in recent months.

Speaking after an appearance at a Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony on Monday, Mr. Shapiro emphasized that “we should be universal in our condemnation of antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of hate.”

While there is room for “nuance” in foreign policy discussions, he said, “it should not be hard for anyone on the political left or right to call out antisemitism.”

In a new survey , Mr. Shapiro, a former state attorney general, had a job approval rating of 64 percent, with just 19 percent of Pennsylvanians saying they disapproved.

He has long emphasized bipartisanship and prioritized nonideological issues like rapidly reopening a stretch of Interstate 95 after a collapse. And his own religious observance has helped him connect with people of other faiths in a state where Jews are estimated to make up about 3 percent of the electorate.

“I make it home Friday night for Sabbath dinner because family and faith ground me,” he said in a campaign ad.

Many Jews in Pennsylvania hope that he will become the first Jewish president. On that subject, he deflects as skillfully as any potential White House aspirant: He laughs or insists that he loves and is focused on his current job.

“I am very humbled that people have taken note of our work,” he said. “I sort of dismiss those comments because they’re not helpful to the work I’m trying to do every day as governor, the voice I’m trying to have both here in the commonwealth and across the country to root out hate and to speak with moral clarity.”

He added, “It’s certainly not helpful when it comes to our top political priority, which is to re-elect President Biden.”

‘Josh is front and center’

The Mideast war, which has killed more than 34,000 people in Gaza, according to local health authorities, has fueled a broad and significant protest movement.

But on college campuses, there are sharp debates over when demonstrations against Israel and its treatment of Palestinians veer into antisemitic targeting of Jewish students and institutions.

To Mr. Shapiro, the distinction is clear: Criticism of Israeli policies is fair game. “Affixing to every Jew the policies of Israel,” he said, is not.

Mr. Shapiro said he felt a “unique responsibility” to speak out both because he leads a state founded on a vision of religious tolerance , and because he is a “proud American Jew.”

Indeed, his Jewish identity is intertwined with his public persona to a degree rarely seen in American politicians.

He is a Jewish day school alumnus who has featured challah in his campaign advertising and alludes to a collection of Jewish ethics in his speeches. In recent weeks, he offered an under-the-weather 76ers player matzo ball soup and celebrated the end of Passover with Martin’s Potato Rolls, a Pennsylvania delicacy.

“It’s not an easy time to be Jewish, and to be a Jewish politician,” said Sharon Levin, a former teacher of Mr. Shapiro’s. “Josh is front and center.”

Mr. Shapiro has also spent significant time in Israel, proposing to his wife in Jerusalem . Asked if, like Mr. Biden , he considers himself a Zionist, he confirmed that he did.

“I am pro-Israel,” he said. “I am pro-the idea of a Jewish homeland, a Jewish state, and I will certainly do everything in my power to ensure that Israel is strong and Israel is fortified and will exist for generations.”

He also supports a two-state solution , is a longtime critic of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and said he mourned “the loss of life in Gaza.”

That approach is common among elected Democrats. But it is clearly at odds with the campus protests, which are often explicitly anti-Zionist.

The issue is virtually certain to divide Democrats on future presidential debate stages.

For now, Mr. Shapiro has not drawn the kind of backlash from the left that some other Israel supporters have, in part because he is not voting on foreign policy. And while another Pennsylvania Democrat, Senator John Fetterman, has sometimes engaged provocatively with pro-Palestinian demonstrators, Mr. Shapiro has a more measured, lawyerly style.

“It’s critically important that we remove hate from the conversation and allow people to freely express their ideas, whether I agree with their ideas or not,” he said.

Tensions over Israel

Some Muslim leaders say Mr. Shapiro has not found the right balance in his post-Oct. 7 comments.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations in Philadelphia said in a statement that two of its board members had skipped an iftar dinner he hosted, arguing that he had “created much harm and hurt among Muslim, Arab and pro-Palestinian Pennsylvanians.”

“The governor, like the White House, is not fully able to see the deep level of resentment that exists about his stances,” Ahmet Tekelioglu, the executive director of that chapter, said in an interview. (In a statement on Friday, he also criticized Mr. Shapiro’s call to disband the Penn encampment.) “The governor has lost the trust of many in the Muslim-American community in Pennsylvania that had long considered him a friend.”

Mr. Shapiro, whose team has clashed with CAIR before, replied, “I’m not going to let one press release from one group that has its own agenda take away from the close, strong relationship I have with the Muslim community.”

“We have tried to create, at the residence and across Pennsylvania, a place where all faiths feel welcomed,” he said.

State Representative Tarik Khan, a Philadelphia-area Democrat who is Muslim, did attend the iftar. It included time for prayer and a “legit dinner,” he said, rather than “hors d’oeuvres and get the hell out.”

“At a time when there’s a lot of trauma, sometimes the easy thing is to do nothing,” Mr. Khan said. “If he didn’t care about our community, he wouldn’t have spent that time.”

Growing expectations

Mr. Shapiro faces different pressures from the Jewish community.

In the Philadelphia area, many know him or his family personally — or feel as if they do — and in some cases expect him to speak out frequently in support of Israel. But, said Jonathan Scott Goldman, the chair of the Pennsylvania Jewish Coalition, his job is to lead the whole state.

“Jewish people want to and do claim Josh as their own,” Mr. Goldman said. “He knows he’s not just a Jewish governor. He’s a governor, and he’s the governor of all Pennsylvanians.”

In the interview, Mr. Shapiro reiterated that he was focused on that job.

But asked if — broadly speaking — he believed the country could elect a Jewish president in his lifetime, he replied, “Speaking broadly, absolutely.”

“It doesn’t mean that our nation is free of bias,” he said. “If you’re asking me, can the country rise above that, and elect someone that might look different than them or worship different than them? The answer is yes.”

— Katie Glueck Reporting from Pennsylvania’s State Capitol building in Harrisburg, Pa.

After arrests at Arizona State, the campus police chief is put on leave.

Arizona State University has put the chief of its campus police department on paid administrative leave, two weeks after dozens of people were arrested at a pro-Palestinian encampment there.

The decision came after complaints were filed related to the actions of the chief, Michael Thompson, in late April, when the campus police broke up the demonstration. School officials said on Friday that the university’s general counsel was reviewing the complaints, but they did not provide further details about the allegations or who had filed them.

At least 20 Arizona State students were among the people arrested after they refused to leave the campus. The students were temporarily suspended, and have since filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Board of Regents, which governs the state’s public university system. The suit, filed in Federal District Court in Arizona, argues that the school violated their First Amendment rights.

There were also reports that the police had removed some women’s hijabs during the arrests. Those reports were being reviewed by the general counsel’s office, the university said in a statement last week.

Azza Abuseif, executive director for Arizona’s branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement on April 29 that she was calling for a full investigation.

David Chami, a lawyer representing four of the women, as well as many of the students who were arrested and suspended, also pointed to video reportedly showing Chief Thompson , in plainclothes, cutting through a tent in the encampment as it was being cleared out.

University officials did not respond to questions about whether those reports were related to Chief Thompson being placed on leave. The assistant chief of the school’s police department, John Thompson, is now serving as acting chief. The two men are not related, according to the school.

Anna Betts contributed reporting.

— Jacey Fortin

A U.C.L.A. meeting to consider formally rebuking the chancellor ends without a vote.

The Academic Senate at the University of California, Los Angeles, failed to come to a vote on Friday on whether to formally rebuke the school’s chancellor, Gene Block, after pro-Palestinian demonstrators were attacked for hours last week without police intervention and more than 200 protesters were later arrested as their encampment was dismantled .

The virtual meeting was attended by several hundred members of the Senate, which includes all faculty members who meet certain criteria. Only members of a smaller group known as the Legislative Assembly, which consists of representatives selected by campus departments, would have been allowed to vote on a no-confidence resolution and a censure resolution.

A vote of no confidence in Mr. Block would have been the harsher of the two measures.

“For many of us, we feel strongly that the actions and inaction of our chancellor warrant a vote of no confidence,” said Carlos Santos, an associate professor of social welfare who represents the Luskin School of Public Affairs in the Assembly, before the meeting. “We feel strongly that it’s critical that we go down in history as centering our students’ safety, first and foremost.”

But after more than three hours of discussion, much of it devoted to parliamentary procedure, the meeting ended without a vote. The group will take up the issue again at its next meeting, on May 16.

Mr. Block, 75, did not comment on the resolutions on Friday. He has served as chancellor of U.C.L.A. since 2007 and has already said that he will step down at the end of July. But the vote could still serve as an important indicator of how faculty members at the elite public university feel about free speech and the campus climate in a polarized era.

On Friday, dozens of speakers recounted rushing to help students who had been beaten, their eyes streaming from chemical agents. Medical school faculty members described hearing from medical students and residents who had been attacked as they tried to treat injured protesters.

Many emphasized that a vote of no confidence was simply that: an indication that Mr. Block had lost the backing of the faculty, and a sign to the incoming administration that faculty members would not hesitate to speak up on behalf of students. It was not, they said, a referendum on the views of the protesters themselves.

Relatively few speakers opposed the measures, though a couple voiced concerns about antisemitism among protesters at the encampment.

If the Senate passes one or both resolutions, U.C.L.A. will join a list of universities whose faculty and staff have united with protesters to rebuke their administrators’ handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

Earlier this week, the Academic Senate at the University of Southern California voted to censure its president . The University Senate at California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, took a vote of no confidence last month in its president, Tom Jackson Jr., after law enforcement officers in riot gear responded to activists who took over an administration building .

Frustration with Mr. Block has mounted since the night of April 30, when a large group of counterprotesters confronted a pro-Palestinian encampment that had sprawled across a campus quad days earlier.

Administrators initially took a more hands-off approach to the encampment than other universities, citing University of California policy that law enforcement was to be called “only if absolutely necessary to protect the physical safety of our campus community.”

But on April 30, the sixth day of the encampment, Mr. Block declared the site illegal and warned protesters to leave. He cited some violent incidents between protesters and counterprotesters, as well as examples of pro-Palestinian demonstrators blocking access to parts of the campus.

Counterprotesters arrived later that night and sprayed students with pepper spray, shot fireworks into the encampment and used metal pipes and other objects to attack protesters. Police and security officers who were present for parts of the melee didn’t intervene for hours, and no arrests have been made in the attacks.

The next night, administrators authorized police officers from three agencies to clear the encampment.

Criticism from members of the campus community, as well as state and local officials, was swift. Mr. Block called it “a dark chapter in our campus’s history.”

He subsequently established an office of campus safety, with a former police chief at its head, to oversee the university’s police department. He also brought in outside consultants to investigate what happened during the attacks.

Until then, “We thought the university was handling it great,” said Matt Barreto, a professor of political science and Chicano studies who has been acting as a spokesman for a faculty group that has been supporting the protesters. So the sudden change in approach and in particular, what Mr. Barreto characterized as an overly violent police response, was jarring.

Some Jewish organizations, however, were upset by videos of protesters blocking students from accessing walkways or buildings if they did not renounce Zionism. Jewish Federation Los Angeles said the climate had become hostile to Jewish students and that there had been a “horrifying escalation of antisemitism.”

— Jill Cowan Reporting from Los Angeles

Two universities cancel speeches by the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

In the span of less than a week, two universities have rescinded commencement speaking invitations to Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the American ambassador to the United Nations, because of student opposition to the United States’ support of Israel during the war in Gaza.

Xavier University, an historically Black institution in New Orleans, withdrew its invitation to Ms. Thomas-Greenfield earlier this week, saying in a statement that “a number of students” had objected to her giving a commencement address. The president of Xavier, Reynold Verret, indicated that he was concerned about the possibility of disruptions during the graduation ceremony this weekend, and came to the conclusion that Xavier could no longer host her — a situation he said was “regrettable.”

Mr. Verret added that he looked forward to having Ms. Thomas-Greenfield, one of only two Black women to hold the U.N. ambassador post, visit the school and speak “in the future.”

The University of Vermont announced last week that Ms. Thomas-Greenfield would not be speaking there, agreeing to a key demand by student demonstrators who set up an encampment on the campus in Burlington. The school’s president, Suresh Garimella, notified the student body last week that Ms. Thomas-Greenfield would not speak at graduation, and wrote, “I see you and hear you.”

A spokesman for Ms. Thomas-Greenfield said in a statement that the ambassador looked forward “to continuing to engage with young people on campuses” and elsewhere, and noted that she had recently spoken to high school students in Pennsylvania.

Opponents of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has claimed the lives of more than 30,000 people, according to Palestinian health authorities, have focused some of their ire on Ms. Thomas-Greenfield because she has led the U.S. efforts in the Security Council to block several resolutions calling for a cease-fire. She argued against the resolutions on the grounds that Hamas, whose Oct. 7 attack on Israel killed 1,200 people, had not agreed to release the hostages it took that day.

Even so, in March the United States abstained from voting on one cease-fire resolution, a signal of the Biden administration’s growing displeasure with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of Israel’s war efforts. That abstention allowed the resolution to pass the Security Council, breaking a five-month impasse.

— Jeremy W. Peters