Not exactly. The Supreme Court case claims that there will have to be an Act (or acts) of Parliament before Article 50 can be triggered - in other words the sovereign Parliament, rather than the executive Government, will make the key decisions. Today’s vote was simply backing a motion rather than a statute, so is not law, but it’s a useful first step. The fact that the Government tabled an amendment to the motion which broadly supported it is being taken by many to indicate that the Government expects to lose its appeal in the Supreme Court, and is conceding that Parliament will have to have a greater involvement than it had hoped.
And that, as naturalman1975 has now explained with his usual elegance, is only right and constitutionally proper. The present opposition to Parliamentary control by those who campaigned for repatriation of sovereignty from Brussels to Westminster is, to put it mildly, perverse.
Thanks for the clarification.