Court must avoid judiciary being dragged into super juniors ‘political contest'
On Monday afternoon, the Attorney General (AG) Rossa Fanning told the court that the Constitution does not forbid the attendance of super junior ministers while simultaneously allowing the attendance of the Secretary General and the AG.
Mr Fanning, SC for the Government, said Mr Daly is asking the court to write in a new constitutional provisional that is 'simply not contained' in the text.
He claimed that Mr Daly is asking the court to enter the 'political thicket' and to intervene in the inner workings of Government.
He said that the court ought to resist the applicant's attempt to have the judiciary involved in a political contest being 'played as an away fixture down in the Four Courts'.
'These proceedings are misconceived in a number of respects but there is one fundamental error on which they are premised,' Mr Fanning added.
'The error that affects this case is that he wrongfully conflates the attendance of government meetings with being a government minister on the other.
'The two concepts are entirely distinct. There is a significant difference in legal statutory powers and functions of government ministers on one hand and ministers of state on the other.'
He added that statutory powers are delegated to ministers of state, and that the delegation is subject to the government ministers, which means, he added, that ministers of state remain under the supervision of senior ministers.
He added that the invitation of super junior ministers to Cabinet meetings is underpinned by legislation, and that Cabinet meetings are one element of government decision making.
He added that government policy is not formed at Cabinet in any 'real sense' .
'It is the last stop in the government chain,' he added.
Earlier the court was told that super junior ministers are acting as a 'collective authority' with ministers at Cabinet, in breach of the constitution.
Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald and Donegal TD Pearse Doherty were in court on Monday alongside Mr Daly.
Mr Daly argues that Article 28 of the Constitution of Ireland limits the number of government members to 15.
Sinn Féin are here today to challenge Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael blatant stroke politics. We believe they are playing fast and loose with the Constitution to grease the wheels of their grubby deal with Michael Lowry and load the Cabinet with so-called 'Super Junior' Ministers. Pa… pic.twitter.com/JYTGyWUzGJ
— Mary Lou McDonald (@MaryLouMcDonald) July 7, 2025
The super junior ministers appointed include Fine Gael's Hildegarde Naughton, as well as Independents Sean Canney and Noel Grealish.
Fianna Fail's Mary Butler is also a minister of state attending Cabinet.
Senior government ministers are appointed by the president of Ireland on the advice of the taoiseach of the day, and with the approval of the Dail.
Super junior ministers are appointed by the government on the nomination of the taoiseach.
Feichin McDonagh SC told the three judges that the legal basis of their appointment was exactly the same as the other ministers of state who do not attend Cabinet.
He added that there is no legal basis for the appointment for 'ministers of state who regularly attend Cabinet'.
'That creature simply does not exist under legislation,' he added.
He said he has queried with the respondents about what exactly is a minister of state who regularly attends government meetings.
'One would have thought following exchange of meetings there might be some consensus, but there does not appear to be a consensus,' Mr McDonagh said.
He told the court it was not possible to address the issues unless the court knows what a super minister is.
'The designation of super junior by taoiseach was in some way an exercise of executive power of the state,' he added.
He said it is suggested in the respondent's affidavit that there is an office called minister of state who regularly attends government, which Mr McDonagh said does not exist.
He added that a decision to pay an allowance to super juniors does not change that position.
'Four super juniors now get an allowance and we challenge the provisions in that legislation to allow that,' he added.
'There is minister of state who is told by taoiseach they can regularly attend government (meetings) and if they come into that category they get 16,000 euro a year.
'But it is not an office, not enacted under the constitution and there is no underpinning to suggest that the office is being created.'
He also queried the meaning behind the words under Article 4.1, in which it states that the Government shall meet and act as a collective authority.
'What does collective authority do? They meet and with the others (ministers) they collectively act. Who is acting collectively? It is the government along with the super junior ministers,' Mr McDonagh added.
'There will be government decisions taken and government acting collectively.
'In that scenario there are extra individuals who are there present in the counsel of chamber. They are taking a full role in the formulation and formation of government policy, thereby acting as a collective authority and there is no dispute between the parties as to that being what is happening.
'The government is formulating policy and taking countless decisions and undoubtedly purporting to act as a collective authority.
'You cannot unscramble that egg. If you have government meeting with super juniors speaking to perspective government decisions and a consensus is arrived at, that decision is no less than a government decision than one that has been voted on.
'That decision is arrived at following a process of mixing yolks to getting into scramble egg and that cannot be unscrambled.'
Earlier, Ms McDonald said the Government has broken the rules.
Speaking outside court, Ms McDonald said: 'This is a challenge to a Government who we believe have played fast and loose with the Constitution in a bid to secure a grubby deal with Michael Lowry and to retain office, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, we believe are acting in defiance of the Constitution.
'There are four so-called super junior ministers who attend Cabinet. The Constitution, in our view, is very clear. The Cabinet amounts to 15 members, and we believe that the Government is breaking the rules.
'They've broken the rules because at all costs, Micheal Martin and Simon Harris wish to remain in government, so they cut this deal, as you know, with Michael Lowry, and we are here now to challenge that action and to seek clarity.'
Mr Daly brought the constitutional challenge against the Government in the High Court regarding the appointment of super junior ministers.
The case challenges what Mr Daly says is a 'deeply problematic and unconstitutional practice that has taken root in recent decades'.
He said: 'This case is a constitutional challenge aimed at protecting the integrity of our system of government under Bunreacht na hEireann with which Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Lowry-led Independents are playing fast and loose.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US appeals court indiciates it might declare Trump's birthright citizenship order unconstitutional
Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of the US president's hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based first US circuit court of appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the federal justice department as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the US supreme court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order as unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the supreme court. Eric McArthur, a justice department attorney, said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the US constitution's 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the US civil war, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. 'It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right' to the children of people in the US without documentation, he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the supreme court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the US to non-citizen parents. 'We have an opinion by the supreme court that we aren't free to disregard,' said David Barron, the chief US circuit judge who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on the Republican's first day back in the Oval Office on 20 January, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included Leo Sorokin, a US district judge in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. 'The supreme court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens,' Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority US supreme court on 27 June sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the ninth circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the first circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. Separately, in an immigration-related ruling on Friday, US district Judge Jia Cobb in Washington DC blocked the Trump administration from fast-tracking the deportation of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were paroled into the country under humanitarian programs during Joe Biden's presidency. Cobb said it served the public interest to put on hold the Department of Homeland Security's expedited removals for those who entered with temporary parole rather than cause irreparable harm to immigrants by allowing them.
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Labour's border chaos is fuelling public fury and fear as dangerous foreign offenders vanish into thin air
Labour's not smashing it IT is little more than a year since Labour came to power promising to smash the people-smuggling gangs. Instead they have smashed the economy — with inflation up, unemployment up and business confidence at a record low. The only significant growth is in the number of illegal migrants coming here in small boats. Already over 25,000 have arrived this year — a 50 per cent rise on the 2024 figure by this stage, which was shocking enough. That number is dwarfed by the UK's astonishing 700,000 population increase in just a year — almost entirely due to legal immigration — which itself is utterly unsustainable. The arrival of thousands of mostly undocumented illegal migrants is symptomatic of just how badly Britain has lost control of its borders. It's not just the millions of pounds it costs taxpayers every day to shower the migrants with handouts and put them up in hotels, nor the fact that so many of them find black market jobs. Most of the arrivals are young men of fighting age — yet the authorities seem to have little idea who they are, even if they end up in court. National emergency We discovered earlier this week that the number of foreign sex offenders and violent criminals in prison in England and Wales is at a record high, and that 40 per cent of people charged with sex attacks in the capital were foreign nationals. Now we learn foreign criminals are simply walking free mid-trial and disappearing under false names because of a dangerous 'disconnect' between prosecutors and immigration enforcement. It is little wonder that people — not least mothers — worry about migrant hotels on their doorsteps, or that protests are growing, or that polls show immigration is the number one issue concerning voters. So what is the Government doing about this national emergency? Reform UK's rising star Laila Cunningham It seems to have no plan, beyond a sketchy one-in-one-out deal with France and setting up a spy unit to track anyone on social media discussing anti-migrant sentiment or two-tier justice. While Britain continues to house soaring numbers of uninvited guests in four-star hotels, America has seen a massive drop in illegal border crossings because tough detention centres and deportations await those who do. President Donald Trump has shown the problem CAN be tackled, if only the political will exists. The Government, which ditched the Rwanda scheme — the only viable deterrent — as its first act in power, has shown precious little will so far. It's about time Sir Keir Starmer realised the urgency of the situation... and started taking tough action of his own. 1
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
Aug 1 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide.
