Another Setback for UK's Johnson, Extra Ambiguity Over Brexit

In a major setback for UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Britain's highest court ruled that his decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks amid heightened Brexit dispute was illegal.

In a strongly worded decision, the Supreme Court judgment declared that the order was "void and of no effect", but also that Johnson acted to limit debate on Britain's impending departure from the European Union in violation of Parliament's constitutional role.

Supreme Court President Brenda Hale said the suspension "was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."

She said the court's decision means Parliament was never legally suspended and is technically still sitting.

On his part, House of Commons Speaker John Bercow welcomed the historic verdict and said Parliament would resume its business tomorrow morning. He said citizens are "entitled" to have parliament perform its core constitutional duties.

Johnson, who is in New York for the U.N. General Assembly, said that he would abide by the court's decision.

The court decision triggered calls for Johnson to step down. Opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn told his party conference that Johnson should resign "and become the shortest-serving prime minister there's ever been."

"I invite Boris Johnson, in the historic words, to consider his position," Corbyn told the party faithful in the southern city of Brighton.

Since he assumed power in July, Johnson has been at odds with the parliament over his insistence to withdraw Britain from the EU on Oct. 31 with or without an agreement.

According to AP, the harsh tone of the court's decision, and the unanimous vote of 11 Supreme Court judges, led many to say that Johnson can't carry on.

"His position is untenable and he should have the guts for once to do the decent thing and resign," Scottish National Party legislator Joanna Cherry said outside the court.

In a nation where no constitution is there, the dispute marks a rare confrontation between the prime minister, the courts and Parliament over their rights and responsibilities.