‘The supreme court in the UK and US have limited political influence’ analyse and evaluate (25)
The Supreme Court in both the UK and US is the highest court of appeal which deals with crucial
matters of law in their jurisdiction. Both courts listen to a number of cases and offer the judgement
which binds inferior courts. Whilst it is clear that the political influence in both can be limited with
parliamentary sovereignty in the UK and the potential for congress to overrule in the US. It is
obvious the Supreme Court will always hold some level of political influence as they are actively
involved with the political decisions of the country. However, this is more so in the US than the UK.
The UK Supreme Court can be seen to be limited in its political influence. This was evident in the
case of Treasury v Ahmed 2010 in which the then Prime Minister Gordan Brown proposed the
‘Terrorist Asset- Freezing Act (2010)’ to give the government power to freeze the assets of suspected
Terrorist suspects. This bill was only temporary to begin with, yet it completed all of the legislative
stages within just four days. This, therefore, demonstrates the power of parliament and so the UK
Supreme Court cannot be truly influential. Similarly in the US, the Supreme Court has a definite role
in upholding the US constitution. This is seen under the Roper v Simmons case (2005) in which it was
decided nobody under the age of 18, at the time the murder was committed, could be executed.
Whilst the Supreme Court was able to make a decision, this was only grated because the case was
brought to them. Therefore, the political influence is restricted. The US, however, does have more
political influence than the UK Supreme Court. This is evident with the case of Obergefell v Hodges
(2015) in which the US Supreme Court legalised same sex marriage on a federal level to ensure all US
states licensed same sex marriages. This is a clear and active role in a major political decision and so
political influence is evident. Similarly, the UK Supreme Court was able to pressure the UK
government into change to the civil partnership act. In the case of Steinfeld and Keidan v Home
Secretary (2018), the government amended the civil partnership act to enable heterosexual couples
to enter into civil partnerships. The Supreme Court declared it was incompatible with the ECHR and
so pressured the government into change. Whilst this does show the possibility of political influence
by the UK Supreme Court, it isn’t always effective as parliamentary sovereignty enables the
government to be most influential and simply ignore the Supreme Court if it wishes. Therefore,
influence is somewhat limited.
The UK Supreme Court may not have a lot of political influence , it still has the power to make a
difference to major political decisions. This was clearly seen under Miller v Secretary of State for
exiting the EU (2017) in which the Supreme Court successfully slowed the process of triggering
article 50 in the UK. This clearly reveals a level of political influence as the Supreme Court was able
to delay a major political movement made by parliament. However, the appointment of justices is
done by an independent commission. Therefore, as the decision is not political, the political
influence is obviously limited. This was clearly evident with the appointment of Sir David Richards in
2022. He was nominated by commission and later approved by the Queen. This does contrast the US
process of appointment; justices are instead nominated by the President themselves. This was
evident with Trump nominating Neil Gorsuch, a Conservative, in 2016. As this decision is made by
the President, the head of state, it is clearly more political than the UK. Therefore, more political
influence is likely in the US as presidents are likely to nominate those with similar ideological views.
However, a key factor in the appointment process for the US is judicial experience. This was evident
with Elena Kegan who was nominated because of her work as a solicitor general for the US.
Therefore, this suggests not all US Supreme Court appointments are political.
The Supreme Court in the UK does have political influence. In the case R (Begum) v Home Secretary
the Supreme Court supported the use of prerogative powers and raised concerns around the right to
The Supreme Court in both the UK and US is the highest court of appeal which deals with crucial
matters of law in their jurisdiction. Both courts listen to a number of cases and offer the judgement
which binds inferior courts. Whilst it is clear that the political influence in both can be limited with
parliamentary sovereignty in the UK and the potential for congress to overrule in the US. It is
obvious the Supreme Court will always hold some level of political influence as they are actively
involved with the political decisions of the country. However, this is more so in the US than the UK.
The UK Supreme Court can be seen to be limited in its political influence. This was evident in the
case of Treasury v Ahmed 2010 in which the then Prime Minister Gordan Brown proposed the
‘Terrorist Asset- Freezing Act (2010)’ to give the government power to freeze the assets of suspected
Terrorist suspects. This bill was only temporary to begin with, yet it completed all of the legislative
stages within just four days. This, therefore, demonstrates the power of parliament and so the UK
Supreme Court cannot be truly influential. Similarly in the US, the Supreme Court has a definite role
in upholding the US constitution. This is seen under the Roper v Simmons case (2005) in which it was
decided nobody under the age of 18, at the time the murder was committed, could be executed.
Whilst the Supreme Court was able to make a decision, this was only grated because the case was
brought to them. Therefore, the political influence is restricted. The US, however, does have more
political influence than the UK Supreme Court. This is evident with the case of Obergefell v Hodges
(2015) in which the US Supreme Court legalised same sex marriage on a federal level to ensure all US
states licensed same sex marriages. This is a clear and active role in a major political decision and so
political influence is evident. Similarly, the UK Supreme Court was able to pressure the UK
government into change to the civil partnership act. In the case of Steinfeld and Keidan v Home
Secretary (2018), the government amended the civil partnership act to enable heterosexual couples
to enter into civil partnerships. The Supreme Court declared it was incompatible with the ECHR and
so pressured the government into change. Whilst this does show the possibility of political influence
by the UK Supreme Court, it isn’t always effective as parliamentary sovereignty enables the
government to be most influential and simply ignore the Supreme Court if it wishes. Therefore,
influence is somewhat limited.
The UK Supreme Court may not have a lot of political influence , it still has the power to make a
difference to major political decisions. This was clearly seen under Miller v Secretary of State for
exiting the EU (2017) in which the Supreme Court successfully slowed the process of triggering
article 50 in the UK. This clearly reveals a level of political influence as the Supreme Court was able
to delay a major political movement made by parliament. However, the appointment of justices is
done by an independent commission. Therefore, as the decision is not political, the political
influence is obviously limited. This was clearly evident with the appointment of Sir David Richards in
2022. He was nominated by commission and later approved by the Queen. This does contrast the US
process of appointment; justices are instead nominated by the President themselves. This was
evident with Trump nominating Neil Gorsuch, a Conservative, in 2016. As this decision is made by
the President, the head of state, it is clearly more political than the UK. Therefore, more political
influence is likely in the US as presidents are likely to nominate those with similar ideological views.
However, a key factor in the appointment process for the US is judicial experience. This was evident
with Elena Kegan who was nominated because of her work as a solicitor general for the US.
Therefore, this suggests not all US Supreme Court appointments are political.
The Supreme Court in the UK does have political influence. In the case R (Begum) v Home Secretary
the Supreme Court supported the use of prerogative powers and raised concerns around the right to
