The High Court on Friday dismissed two separate legal challenges brought by opposition TDs seeking to block junior ministers from regularly attending and participating in Cabinet meetings.
Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly and People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy brought separate High Court challenges arguing that Cabinet meetings may only be attended by full Government ministers. They contended that the presence of junior ministers was unconstitutional and undermined Cabinet confidentiality.
The TDs maintained that the Constitution confines Cabinet membership to the 15 ministers formally appointed by the President, and that any participation beyond that group was unlawful.
Murphy sought court orders preventing junior ministers from attending Cabinet meetings, while Daly additionally contested the statutory basis for paying junior ministers an allowance linked to their Cabinet attendance.
However, both cases were rejected by a three-judge panel of the High Court, which found that no constitutional breach had occurred.
OBJECTIONS REJECTED
The court ruled that the participation of “Super Junior” ministers does not breach the constitutional limit of 15 members of the Government, as they hold no formal decision-making power.
They stated that “we do not consider that the we do not consider that the Defendants have breached any express, or implied, constitutional constraint (or obligation) by inviting the relevant Ministers of State to meetings of the Government.”
In a pointed rejection of the cases brought by Sinn Féin’s Pa Daly and People Before Profit’s Paul Murphy, the court stated that the “legal and factual differences” between Ministers of State and Senior Government Ministers were clear, including in how they are appointed, their Departmental role, their decision-making power, their ability to submit memorandums, and more.
“AN UNTENABLE PROPOSITION” THAT IS “UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE”
“These differences, clearly established on the evidence and in law and set out above, demonstrate the fragility of a core (albeit not exclusive) factual premise upon which these proceedings have been taken – namely, that the Minister of State attending at meetings of Government is in the same position as a member of Government,” the court said in its judgement.
“In our view, this is an untenable proposition and is unsupported by the facts and the evidence. It is manifestly the case that there are, in fact and in law, only 15 members of Government within the meaning of Article 28.1 of the Constitution.
“We are quite satisfied on the evidence that functionally and legally, the role of a member of the Government is distinct from, and more powerful than that of a Super Junior Minister.”
“ILLOGICAL AND ABSURD”
On the point of cabinet confidentiality, the judges criticized the logic used by the TDs, pointing out that if Cabinet meetings could only be attended by senior Ministers, then even secretarial assistants could not attend Cabinet, which they dubbed an “illogical and absurd” notion.
“This would prevent the members of the Government from even having secretarial assistance present to assist them and to record their decisions,” the judgement reads.
“Cleary such an outcome would be illogical and absurd and is not a case pressed on behalf of Deputy Daly but is one which, it appears to us, follows from the logic of the argument made on his behalf in relation to “the rule of 15” as urged.
LEADS TO A CONCLUSION THAT IS NOT “ANCHORED IN COMMON SENSE” OR GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
“The logical conclusion on the Applicant’s argument is that discussions at Government meetings must necessarily be held only in the presence of the 15 members of Government to the exclusion of everyone else.
“[This is] an argument which leads to such a conclusion is neither anchored in common sense, nor duly cognizant of the practical realities of the administration of Government.”
The court noted that everyone in the room – including civil servants and note-takers – are legally bound to respect the confidentiality of discussions.
“Cabinet confidentiality does not constrain the Government from holding its deliberations in front of third parties who are invited to contribute, but those third parties are equally bound by obligations of confidentiality flowing from Article 28.4.3,” the judgement stated.
“The concept applies to the discussions at the meetings of the Government and confidentiality must be respected by all persons privy to the details of those discussions.”
SUPER JUNIORS HAVE “NO DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY”
Daly and Murphy had argued that the presence of non-members at the Cabinet table made them de-facto Government members. However, the court found that while these ministers participate in discussions, they are “peripheral” to actual decisions, possessing “no decision-making authority.”
The judges ultimately concluded that the Taoiseach maintains broad discretion to manage internal government operations, including who is invited to assist the work of the 15 constitutional members.
“…the Taoiseach ultimately has the final say on who may or may not attend meetings of the Government…” they said.
“The decision to have one or more Ministers of State attending regularly at meetings of the Government Cabinet is a political decision, ultimately resting with the Taoiseach, as part of the Government formation process.”
The cases have been listed for a follow-up hearing in January 2026 to address consequential orders.
PAUL MURPHY AND SINN FÉIN REACT
In a statement, Murphy thanked the Court and his legal team for their work in considering what he called a “crucial matter”.
“I took this action to seek to challenge the participation of ‘Super Junior’ Ministers in Cabinet meetings,” he said.
“This is being used by the current government as a political stroke to facilitate the Lowry group. The essential question is whether the government can ‘get around’ the Constitution, as Leo Varadkar put it, in order to share the spoils of power.
“This decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court. I will be taking time over Christmas to consider the 161 page judgement. I will be meeting with my legal team in the New Year to consider our next steps.”
Meanwhile, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald thanked the court, but said the party would see if it would be taking further action.
“It remains our firm position that no one in political life should have the opportunity to play fast and loose with the Constitution in order to get the political outcomes that they desire and that is why we took this case,” she said.
“…We have judgment from the Courts and we thank them for their time and their attention to this question.
“They have acknowledged the seriousness of the issues that we have raised in both cases. We will study the lengthy judgments over Christmas and decide on any further course of action. We are listed to be back here on 15th January.”