The Government’s appeal to the Supreme Court against an Appeal Court that it’s "back to work" schemes were legally flawed.
The Court of Appeal, in Reilly and Wilson v Secretary of State, held that the regulations used to create most of the Government’s Back to Work schemes were unlawful and quashed them.
The Court of Appeal case concerned two claimants who were on Back to work Schemes. Cait Reilly was made to work in Poundland for two weeks and Jamie Wilson was required to work 30 hours a week for six months for free as part of the Community Action Programme.
The Government has since introduced replacement regulations.
Five Supreme Court justices upheld the Court of Appeal decision and ruled that the Government had not provided a "sufficient detailed prescribed description" of the schemes and what would happen if people refused to take part. It rejected claims that the scheme amounted to forced labour.
In a statement, the Department of Work and Pensions said the Supreme Court had "unanimously upheld our right to require those claiming jobseeker's allowance to take part in programmes which will help get them into work".
"We have always said that it was ridiculous to say that our schemes amounted to forced labour, and yet again we have won this argument," Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said.
For more on this story go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499