Rishi Sunak says he will introduce emergency legislation on the Rwanda asylum plan, after the Supreme Court ruled the scheme was unlawful
The prime minister says the legislation will "confirm Rwanda is safe", after the court said there was a "real risk" people could be sent back to places they fled from
Sunak says change is needed to prevent the "merry-go-round" of legal challenges the government has faced over their flagship policy
Earlier, Sunak said the government was already working on a new treaty with Rwanda
The government claims the plan would deter people crossing the Channel in small boats
Once in Rwanda, people could claim asylum there, return home, or seek asylum in a third country - but not the UK
Labour's Keir Starmer says the Rwanda proposals have been a "ridiculous, pathetic spectacle"
The Supreme Court has started its session.
We'll let you know the court's verdict on Rwanda as soon as it is delivered.
You can watch the proceedings by clicking on the Play button at the top of the page.
Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent
A key element in this case has been the intervention of the United Nations' refugee agency (UNHCR), which raised serious concerns about whether Rwanda was a suitable destination for a relocation plan.
The UN got involved in the Rwanda case because it is an expert body.
It previously told judges the UK had not properly considered the risks of what could happen to people sent to Rwanda - because it had taken on trust diplomatic assurances from the Kigali government, instead of properly considering the evidence.
The UN said there was evidence that the officials who run Rwanda's refugee system take arbitrary and unfair decisions. Its appeals process also didn't meet standards of justice, it said.
Critically, it said it could prove that asylum seekers who had fled countries known for persecution - including the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan - had in fact been sent back there by Rwanda.
Chris Mason
Reporting from the Supreme Court
Hello from Court 1 of the Supreme Court.
Proceedings for the day have just begun.
But it’ll probably be another 20 minutes-ish before we hear about the Rwanda decision.
I must admit I am not a frequent journalistic visitor here.
We are promised that what we will hear won’t be the mumbo-jumbo of complex legalese that places like this are occasionally accused of churning out.
It will be understandable, we are assured.
Whether it is or not, in the first instance, we’ll speak to those we need to - in order to bring you a clear sense of what it all means and what might happen next.
Lucy Fleming
BBC Africa
Image source, Getty ImagesVisitors to Rwanda are often blown away to find a country where things seem to work efficiently.
It is neat and tidy with lush green views - and the wi-fi is good in the capital, Kigali.
Everyone tends to pay their taxes, services are reliable, the roads are safe - the government calls it "one of the world's safest nations".
But underlying this compliance and Kigali's landscaped flower beds is a collective fear.
Walk into a bar and try to start up a controversial debate, and you will be shut down - and there is every likelihood your behaviour will be reported to the authorities.
Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent
There are three parts to the answer to this question.
Firstly, the government has successfully argued, so far, that it has clear powers in laws - that partly date back to when Tony Blair was prime minister - that allow it to send an asylum seeker to another country if they have come to the UK from somewhere safe, such as France.
The novel bit of the plan was to introduce the idea that another country - ie Rwanda - would be paid to consider the individual's asylum case in its entirety, potentially up to giving them a permanent home. So far the courts have ruled that the Refugee Convention, external also allows such a plan.
The third part was the government had to put in place a system to make sure that migrants would be well looked after and humanely treated.
The government says its diplomatic deal with Rwanda guarantees such decent treatment.
Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent
I've sat through some incredibly complicated cases at the Supreme Court - and the Rwanda case has been high up there.
But the decision for the Supreme Court is in fact pretty simple.
The government's appeal argued that the Court of Appeal (the highest court in England and Wales before you get to the UK-wide Supreme Court) should not have overturned an initial judgement from the High Court that the Rwanda scheme met human rights safeguards and was legally water-tight.
So, in short, the Supreme Court has to either back the judges at the Court of Appeal, or the High Court before it.
If it says the High Court was right, then the Rwanda plan can go ahead. If it backs the Court of Appeal, then it may be dead - but it depends on the detail.
Image source, PA MediaThe plane that was due to take people to Rwanda - but which never took off
In short - no.
The first flight was scheduled to go in June 2022, but was cancelled after legal challenges.
The UK government previously said "anyone entering the UK illegally", external after 1 January 2022 could be sent, with no limit on numbers.
Under the deal, Rwanda can also ask the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees, external.
Boris Johnson outlines Rwanda plan in April 2022
And - following on from Gareth Davies - Lord Howard, former Tory leader, says anyone suggesting a Conservative leadership contest is "some distance from reality".
"I don't think that [a contest] is in any way a serious suggestion," he says.
"I think Sunak deserves support of every Conservative MP and every Conservative."
Our colleagues at BBC Breakfast earlier asked Gareth Davies, a Treasury minister, about Braverman's explosive letter.
Reshuffles are very difficult, he says, and that was "clearly a very personal letter".
"But I don’t personally recognise some of the characterisations in it."
Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent
Image source, PA MediaLike London buses, big political days now seem to come in threes.
On Monday, the return of David Cameron. Yesterday - as we've just reminded you - the excoriating letter from Suella Braverman.
And today, a ruling on what was actually a big theme of Braverman’s letter.
Right back to Boris Johnson, the Rwanda asylum policy has been at the heart of the government’s attempt to curb illegal immigration and to stop small boats crossing the English Channel.
Should the Supreme Court justices give the government the green light - that will be a real psychological boost for the Conservative Party.
But if it is an adverse ruling, it will be fascinating to see how Rishi Sunak responds.
It will also give us the first guide to the instincts of James Cleverly, the new home secretary, on this issue.
Chris Mason
Political editor
As you've just seen, Suella Braverman's letter is incendiary.
Incendiary because it is a direct, unflinching assault not just on the prime minister's political capabilities - or lack of them, as she claims - but on his integrity.
Her language drips with derision. Betrayal. Equivocation. Disregard. Wishful thinking. Uncertain. Weak.
She claims to have presented Rishi Sunak with a document outlining her conditions for serving as his home secretary.
Those close to Suella Braverman claim Sunak read and agreed the document the letter refers to, say he took a copy and there were witnesses.
I have asked to see that document and was told it was "not for today".
That suggests she intends to drip-feed her pungent critique - in an attempt to maximise the damage it might cause the government.
Downing Street's response to Braverman's letter hints at a frostiness, to put it gently - "the prime minister believes in actions not words", a spokesman noted acidly.
It is to those actions, or lack of them, that attention turns here, with the Supreme Court's decision on the government's plan to send some migrants to Rwanda.
Expect to hear more from Braverman after we've heard from the judges. The former home secretary isn't going quietly - and she isn't finished yet.
Image source, .Quote MessageIf we lose in the Supreme Court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must he prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one.
Quote MessageWorse than this, your magical thinking - believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion - has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible Plan B.
After two more paragraphs, the ex-home secretary then adds:
Quote MessageIf, on the other hand, we win in the Supreme Court, because of the compromises that you insisted on in the Illegal Migration Act, the government will struggle to deliver our Rwanda partnership in the way that the public expects.
Quote MessageThe Act is far from secure against legal challenge. People will not be removed as swiftly as I originally proposed. The average claimant will be entitled to months of process, challenge, and appeal."
As a reminder - you can read the full letter here.
Image source, ReutersOn Tuesday evening, ex-Home Secretary Suella Braverman - who was sacked on Monday - published an explosive letter to Rishi Sunak.
Amid a full-scale attack, she said that - in order for the Rwanda plan to work - Sunak needed to "block off the ECHR [European Court of Human Rights], the HRA [Human Rights Act] and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK".
Quote MessageYour rejection of this path was not merely a betrayal of our agreement, but a betrayal of your promise to the nation that you would do 'whatever it takes' to stop the boats.
Quote MessageAt every stage of litigation I cautioned you and your team against assuming we would win. I repeatedly urged you to take legislative measures that would better secure us against the possibility of defeat.
Quote MessageYou ignored these arguments. You opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices."
It is a five-year trial policy that would see some asylum seekers to the UK sent to Rwanda on a one-way ticket.
The government says they will be able to claim asylum there, and may be granted refugee status. If not, they can apply to settle on other grounds, return home, or seek asylum in a "safe third country".
The government says this will deter people arriving in the UK through "illegal, dangerous or unnecessary methods" - i.e. small boats which cross the English Channel.
The UK has struck an agreement with Rwanda, external, including £120m of funding, under which people flown there will be given accommodation and support while their claims are processed.
They will then receive a five-year "package of training and support" if granted refugee status. No one has yet been flown to Rwanda, because of legal challenges.
The UK’s "Rwanda plan" for asylum seekers was announced in 2022.
But the ambition to send asylum seekers to the east African country has been thwarted by legal challenges on several occasions.
Today, the Supreme Court will decide whether the plan is lawful. That follows the Court of Appeal's ruling in June that it was unlawful.
We’ll bring you all the latest news and analysis - and you can watch the ruling live from the Supreme Court by clicking the Play button at 10:00 GMT.