The Supreme Court did not overtly say that Boris Johnson lied to the Queen about the reasons for his prorogation of Parliament, but several lawmakers have already said that is the implication of its judgement.
Importantly, the judges ruled on the effect of the prorogation rather than attempting to define the motive, which allowed it to deliver a devastating judgement without explicitly accusing Johnson of lying to the monarch.
Because the effect of the suspension was unlawful, the judges did not need to consider Johnson's motive.
Here's the key part of the ruling:
"It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful."
The court did, however, uphold the decision taken by Scotland's highest civil court, which went further in its ruling by saying that Johnson did mislead the Queen.