nam 22 uu 4500 10.59704/bd8a3811bd7a8a0f DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 240506s2024||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.59704/bd8a3811bd7a8a0f doi eng 342 23 Majewski, Kacper Author aut Unconstitutionality à l’Anglaise - Is the UK having its Marbury v Madison moment? Majewski, Kacper Verfassungsblog 2024-05-06 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier After long and tortuous proceedings in Parliament, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 finally received Royal Assent on Thursday 25 April. There are so many problems with the Act and they are so fundamental that there has been speculation that the courts might refuse to apply some of the Act’s provisions. In this blogpost, I suggest that aside from the ‘hard-line’ approach of striking down or disapplying the statute in whole or in part, the courts also have a ‘soft-line’ option of declaring its unconstitutionality without denying its status as binding law. I explain how such an intervention might fit into the constitutional tradition of the UK and what may make it attractive in the case at hand. CC BY-SA 4.0 Judicial Review Migration Safety of Rwanda Act Safety of Rwanda Bill UK UK Constitutionalism declaration of incompatibility migration law soft judicial review (DE-588)4120730-0 gnd Migration Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://verfassungsblog.de/unconstitutionality-a-langlaise/ raw object