Next month, all 11 members of the UK Supreme Court are expected to gather just yards from the Houses of Parliament to decide on one of the most important pieces of constitutional law in UK history.
The hearing - which will go on for days - presents an unprecedented challenge to the court, just as Brexit presents an unprecedented challenge to British politics.
The opprobrium which has been heaped on the three High Court judges, who ruled that Parliament should have a say in the triggering of Article 50, gives the Supreme Court a sense of what lies ahead.
The High Court announcement took many Remainers and Leavers by surprise, but perhaps even more surprising was the astounding backlash against those who made the decision.
Headlines in the pro-Brexit press suggesting that the judges concerned were "enemies of the people", not to mention references to their private lives as evidence of a liberal, anti-Brexit agenda.
It dragged all the vitriol and division of the EU referendum campaign right back to 22 June and the frantic final hours as each side tried to get their message out.
In the ruling, the three High Court judges said: "It deserves emphasis at the outset that the court in these proceedings is only dealing with a pure question of law. Nothing we say has any bearing on the question of the merits or demerits of withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union: nor does it have any bearing on government policy because government policy is not law."
The ruling does not suggest that Brexit should not go ahead, merely that triggering such a momentous act should be put before Parliament since "the most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that ... Parliament is sovereign".
That the judgment has left pro-Brexit supporters who advocated parliamentary sovereignty now arguing against it, is an irony not lost on anyone.
Many Brexiteers were waiting for something to happen which could throw the process of leaving the EU off track.
For a while that seemed to be the choice of a Remain supporting Prime Minister. But Theresa May has comfortably and quickly moved towards the pro-Brexit side of her party.
No one could have listened to her Conservative Party speech and believed that many vestiges of pro-EU support remained.
The High Court ruling, though, was a different story. With a majority of the House of Commons supporting a Remain vote, any suggestion that it should be involved looked like a realisation of the Brexiteers' fears.
Attack therefore became the best form of defence, and it looks like it may continue in that vein.
The only way that looks set to change is if the Supreme Court reverses the High Court decision and allows Theresa May and her government full control over the triggering of Article 50.
The Supreme Court was founded in 2009, replacing the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in order to be "explicitly separate from both Government and Parliament".
In the 92 cases which the Supreme Court heard since the start of April 2015 and in which judgments were handed down, 31 cases were dismissed and 34 were successful.
Another two were sent to the European Court of Justice.
It would be unprecedented for all 11 members of the court to hear a case, as is widely anticipated for this case, but then these are unprecedented times.
