The Scottish judge retired to consider a legal attempt to prevent the suspension of the British parliament.
Lord Doherty heard arguments from representatives of a group of opposing parties seeking a temporary ban that would stop the move by the government.
Rudy Dunlop QC, speaking on behalf of the British government, said the case was “not a court matter.”
The judge will return his decision at 10:00 on Friday.
The 75-member group of parliamentarians is seeking a Scottish legal equivalent to order a suspension of parliament’s suspension pending a full hearing on September 6.
They began a lawsuit in a court session in Edinburgh last month to prevent Westminster’s closure.
The queen has already approved the prime minister’s request to suspend parliament in September and October.
Follow the live tweets from the court hearing session
Boris Johnson said the Queen’s speech would then be held on October 14, to define his “very exciting agenda” for the new legislation.
However, critics say that makes it unlikely that lawmakers will have enough time to pass laws to stop the Brexit without a deal on October 31.
The “totalitarian state”
Thursday’s session lasted less than four hours and I heard from both sides.
Aidan O’Neill QC, representing parliamentarians, told Justice Lord Doherty: “The powers of the executive branch are never unlimited or unrestricted.
“We do not live in a totalitarian state.”
The suspension of parliament meant denying “political accountability” and was unconstitutional.
The previous case, which included Telegraph owners Barclay Brothers, saw them successfully challenging the validity of the Privy Council’s advice to the Queen.
Joanna Sherry is one of those who support the challenge
Mr. O’Neill referred to a separate case, noting that there was a “sovereignty obligation to invoke a privilege order” if the Court was satisfied that there was a “misuse of authority”.
The case in the Scottish Courts was as valid as in any other court in the United Kingdom, giving an example of the appeal in the Rexit-related court in Northern Ireland.
After the QC conveyed the claim of right from 1689 – which confirmed the sovereignty of the old Scottish Parliament – Lord Doherty asked whether there was a more recent precedent.
Mr. O’Neill said there was no match for the gravity of the current situation.
Reaction to the suspension plan of Parliament
The government asks the queen to suspend parliament
Brexit and Parliament: What just happened?
The parliament’s timetable did not give enough time for parliamentary participation and ratification. Regarding the prime minister’s comments in a television interview on the subject, Mr. O’Neill said: “One might call it a lie, and maybe not unexpected.”
The legal challenge is led by PNP MP Joanna Sherry and LDP leader Joe Swenson, with the help of Joe Mogam of the good bill.
They want the court to rule that closing parliament – known as a concession – before Britain leaves the EU would be “illegal and unconstitutional” and would have “irreversible legal, constitutional and practical implications for the UK”.
The government plans to suspend parliament no later than Monday, September 9, and no later than Thursday, September 12, until Monday, October 14.
“No clear agreement”
Rudy Dunlop QC, who represents the British government, said the practice was a practice that the queen could enter on her own and was not a court matter.
He cited “classic examples of where the courts would not intervene” on the mandate and dissolution of parliament, which he said was a similar issue.
Mr Dunlop said there was a clear agreement in the Queen following her government’s advice, and there was ample evidence to suggest that these agreements were “not subject to prosecution” – not subject to trial in a court of law.
He said that Parliament had never had an opinion on jurisdiction, and that it was “quite normal” that this jurisdiction occurs and that the case is not for the courts just because the period was longer than previous years.
Mr. Dunlop claimed that parliamentarians were asking the courts “to step where they were ineligible for adventure” because of the “intense political” nature of the case,
He added that “there was no good reason” for the temporary ban, given that the plenary session was scheduled for next week and “nothing will happen” regarding jurisdiction before that.