What the High Court will decide

The Pauline Hanson appeal over the Mehreen Faruqi ruling moved forward when the High Court granted special leave on Thursday, after the full federal court earlier in 2026 unanimously upheld the original 2024 decision against her.

When the appeal is heard, the court will weigh two questions:

• •whether Hanson's comments breached the Racial Discrimination Act; and
• •whether the federal court decision impeded her implied freedom of political communication.

How the dispute began

The Mehreen Faruqi racial discrimination case arose in 2022, after the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Faruqi had tweeted that she could not mourn 'the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples'.

Hanson replied that Faruqi's attitude appalled her, listing the citizenship, homes and parliamentary job she said the Greens senator had taken advantage of, and ended with the instruction to 'pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan'.

That was Faruqi's full response in a statement on Thursday after the High Court's decision to hear the appeal.

The rulings against Hanson

In November 2024, Justice Angus Stewart found Hanson's tweet was unlawful and portrayed Faruqi as a 'second-class citizen'. His findings included:

• •'piss off back to Pakistan' was a variant of the slogan 'go back to from where you came from', which he called a 'racist trope' and a strong form of racism;
• •given Hanson's profile, the tweet likely 'empowered others' to make similar or worse comments;
• •the tweet did not fall within the fair comment exemption because it was an 'angry, personal attack';
• •Hanson's argument that Faruqi's tweet on the Queen's death justified her response was rejected.

That judgment was unanimously upheld in July 2026 by three federal court judges: Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett and Elizabeth Bennett.

Both sides respond

Hanson, 72, welcomed the grant of special leave on social media, writing that 'this case has always been bigger than me and bigger than one tweet'. She argued Australians must be able to speak their minds, question their government and disagree without being frightened into silence, and claimed that freedom is under attack, including through Labor's digital duty of care bill and its threat to lawful debate online.

Faruqi said the case had been a long, hard road walked alongside everyone targeted by racism and that her side would not back down now. She said the highest court in Australia can now determine once and for all that people in this country are protected against racism, that people of colour, migrants and Muslims deserve to feel safe in the place they call home, and that in times when people are attacked and demonised, the legal system must provide protection against vilification.

A spokesperson for federal attorney general Michelle Rowland said section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was more important to Australia's social cohesion 'than ever', and that the government's position is clear: there is no place for racism or racial hatred in Australian society. As the matter is before the court, the spokesperson said it would be inappropriate to comment further.

The High Court will now hear the appeal and rule on whether Hanson's comments breached the Racial Discrimination Act or whether the federal court decision impeded her implied freedom of political communication.