1. Exterior of UK Supreme Court building, traffic on street
2. Close of symbol reading (English): "The Supreme Court"
3. Various exteriors of Supreme Court building
4. Various of Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London, looking at book
5. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:
"Well, I think that there are two reasons probably (why the government appealed the High Court ruling that Parliament must hold a vote before negotiations of Britain's exit from the European Union can begin). The first is that it was very confident that it would win at the beginning, and I think it's reluctant to move from that position of confidence. And secondly, it's politically problematic, I think, to be seen to not pursue all legal avenues to obstruct this attempt to, in the eyes of some critics, derail the Brexit process."
6. Cutaway of King
7. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:
"The reaction in some of the media (to the government's loss in the High Court), in particular in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express was, I would say, outrageous. It has been common to criticise judges in the past and I think criticism of judges is perfectly acceptable - they are public officials after all, but this type of language, 'Enemies of the people' (Daily Mail headline the day after the ruling) reminded me of the kinds of things we saw in Nazi Germany."
8. Cutaway of King
9. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:
"This is quintessentially a role for judges to play. It's an unclear legal position. The devolved governments don't agree, many members of parliament don't agree. There needs to be an authoritative ruling on what the role of these statutes is in the Brexit process, and that can only be given by a court."
10. Cutaway of King
11. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:
"I think that a government loss at the Supreme Court would not derail the Brexit process, but I also think it would be more than a mere speed bump because having to bring forward legislation to give notice would mean that there would be a participation of a much broader range of voices, both in Parliament and in the devolved legislatures and among the devolved governments. And when these voices are heard there is a political obligation of sorts to respond to these voices, to take them into account, to not proceed in a way that ignores them altogether, and I think that will make a difference to the outcome of the Brexit process, but I don't think it will stop it."
As UK's Prime Minister Theresa May wants to start Britain's divorce from the European Union (EU), eleven judges may stand in her way.
On Monday, May's government will ask the justices of the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that Parliament must hold a vote before Britain's exit negotiations can begin, a case that has raised a constitutional quandary and inflamed the country's heated debate about Brexit.
May plans to trigger two years of divorce talks before the end of March 2017 by invoking Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, using centuries-old government powers known as royal prerogative.
The powers - traditionally held by the monarch but now used by politicians - enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a vote of Parliament.
A hairdresser and a financial entrepreneur, Deir Dos Santos and Gina Miller, went to court to argue that leaving the EU will remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that shouldn't be done without Parliament's approval.
Last month, three High Court judges agreed, but the government says they have misinterpreted the law.
Government lawyers led by Attorney General Jeremy Wright will argue this week that the British people have spoken by voting in a June 23 referendum to leave the EU.
In written arguments published before Monday's hearing, government lawyers say the use of royal prerogative to start the talks is "constitutionally appropriate and lawful."
Many legal experts say the government will likely lose its appeal and be forced to give Parliament a vote, but the government was left with little choice than to proceed with the case anyway.
"It's politically problematic, I think, to be seen to not pursue all legal avenues to obstruct this attempt to, in the eyes of some critics, derail the Brexit process," says Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London.
In a reflection of the constitutional importance of the case - which hinges on the balance of power between Parliament and the executive - all 11 Supreme Court judges will hear the appeal, the first time the full court has sat since it was founded in 2009.
The case is scheduled to last four days, with a ruling likely in January.
Complicating the picture are new participants including the Scottish government, which argues the Edinburgh-based Scottish Parliament should get a vote, too.
Britons voted by 52 to 48 percent on June 23 to leave the EU, but voters in Scotland strongly backed staying in, and the Scottish government says they should not be dragged out of the EU against their will.