Two senior High Court judges upheld the validity of the 1949 Parliament Act, used in the House of Commons to force through the Hunting Act despite opposition from the House of Lords. The ban is due to take effect on February 18 and will end fox-hunting, stag hunting, and hare-coursing with dogs.
But the Countryside Alliance, which brought the legal action, vowed to fight on in the Appeal Court and mount other challenges, including one next week that could go to the European Court of Human Rights.
And it is considering seeking injunctions to stop the ban coming into force until the legal process is exhausted, which could be months away. Yorkshire huntsmen also last night sounded a defiant note, while pledging to stay within the law.
Alliance chief executive Simon Hart urged hunt supporters not to give up hope, saying: "This is the first of three rounds. Keep hunting, keep fighting. We go to the Court of Appeal confident we have a very good case."
He said hunting was "too important" to be closed down by "a ridiculous, irrelevant piece of legislation", and said he will hunt on February 19. A further appeal could also go to the Law Lords in the House of Lords.
Labour peer Lady Mallalieu, president of the Alliance, said the court decision could have "enormous" constitutional implications.
"What it means is that the House of Commons can pass legislation to destroy any constitutional power of the House of Lords," she said.
But alliance members took heart from the fact the judges gave them permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal because of the importance of the case, with a hearing fixed for February 8.
In Yorkshire, Middleton hunt master Charles Gundry promised to stay within the law until it was proved wrong or unworkable. He added: "We are law-abiding people and we are pretty upset. But how long people will remain law-abiding, I don't know."
Stephen Newlove, from the York and Ainsty North hunt, said: "It is a nail in the coffin but they have got a few more to get in yet before we are gone completely. We are very much confident that it will get overturned. We have got right on our side."
But John Cooper, chairman of the League Against Cruel Sports, said it was a "great day" for Parliamentary democracy and called for any injunction to delay the ban to be opposed.
RSPCA director of animal welfare promotion John Rolls said: "This challenge was always doomed to failure.
"Both the Hunting Act 2004 and the Parliament Act 1949 are pieces of primary legislation, validly passed by Parliament – the highest authority in the land – over which the court has no jurisdiction to interfere.
"So despite this latest diversion from the Countryside Alliance, we look forward to the ban on their barbaric sport coming into force, as expected, on February 18."
Yesterday's case was billed as "one of the most important constitutional cases" in recent legal history.
Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Mr Justice Collins agreed that the 1949 Act was "clear, unambiguous and lawful" and the ban itself valid.
The court rejected the Alliance argument that the 1949 Act was not "a true Act of Parliament", but was "delegated legislation" improperly used to amend and speed up the process first used by the Commons under the 1911 Parliament Act to override opposition from the Lords.
The 1949 Act allowed the Hunting Bill to become law, even though it had been passed by the Commons in only two successive parliamentary sessions, when the 1911 Act stipulated three.
william.green@ypn.co.uk