The Attorney General has argued the High Court judges who ruled that Parliament should vote on triggering Article 50 consigned the EU referendum result to “almost a footnote”.
Mr Wright said the judges who made November’s ruling were “wrong to relegate, almost to a footnote, the outcome of the referendum and to dismiss it as merely a ‘political event’.”
He added in a legal argument submitted to the court that the issue “cannot be resolved in a vacuum, without regard to the outcome of the referendum.”
The submission was signed by Mr Wright and other lawyers, including Advocate General for Scotland, Richard Keen QC.
Over the course of four days from Monday, they will seek to persuade 11 Supreme Court judges to overturn the decision, but no judgement is expected until the New Year.
The ruling will be broadcast live and the president of the court, Lord Neuberger, will explain the reasoning behind it.
The judgement risks derailing the Prime Minister’s vow to trigger Article 50 before the end of March and according to reports, ministers have said there is an “expectation” the Government will lose the appeal.
Earlier this week, one law professor predicted that the PM would lose “11-0” when the justices in the Supreme Court reach a decision.
Professor Michael Zander QC said the High Court judges who ruled Ms May could not act alone when triggering Article 50 had given a “unanimous and very strong” decision.
Around 80 MPs are expected to vote against the legislation in the Commons, including newly elected Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park Sarah Olney.
Register for free to continue reading
Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism
By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists
Already have an account? sign in
Join our new commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies