A UK Court Says a Protest Group Called Palestine Action Is a Terrorist Organization — Here's What Happened

A UK court has ruled that a protest group called Palestine Action counts as a terrorist organization under British law. The Court of Appeal made this call on June 15, 2026, overturning an earlier ruling from February that had thrown out the ban (American Society of International Law).

"Proscription" means the government puts a group on an official banned list. Once a group is on that list, joining it, helping it, or even showing its logo becomes a crime.

The story started in March 2025. Palestine Action was accused of vandalizing the Trump Turnberry golf resort in Scotland — spray-painting "Gaza is not 4 sale" on the golf course (The Guardian). Then-U.S. President Donald Trump called the accused protesters "terrorists" after the incident (The Guardian).

Three months later, in June 2025, the UK government moved to ban Palestine Action under its terrorism laws (New York Times). The ban added the group to a list of Proscribed Organisations under a law called the Terrorism Act 2000 (Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service).

The legal fight has been happening in two places at once, because England and Scotland have separate court systems. In Scotland, the Court of Session — the country's highest civil court — ruled on January 27, 2026 that a review of the ban would go ahead (BBC News). That case is called P1017-25 (Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service).

In England, the High Court ruled on February 13, 2026 against the ban. Then the Court of Appeal reversed that decision on June 15, 2026 (American Society of International Law).

So the courts have gone back and forth. The High Court found reasons to reject the ban. Four months later, the Court of Appeal disagreed and put the ban back in place. The Scottish review adds another layer, since Scotland's courts could reach their own conclusion.

The broader context here is about how much power the government should have to ban groups. The Terrorism Act 2000 lets the Home Secretary — the minister in charge of domestic security — ban any group believed to be involved in terrorism. Under this law, terrorism is defined very broadly. It includes serious property damage done to advance a political, religious, or ideological cause. That means the bar for banning a group is lower than the bar for convicting someone of a crime in a normal trial.

What makes this case stand out is how fast the government acted after a single act of property damage at a politically connected site, and that the ban survived appeal even after the High Court was skeptical. The Turnberry resort is owned by a former and current U.S. president, which adds a diplomatic angle. But the courts have focused on the law, not politics.

The Scottish review in case P1017-25 is still going. If Scotland's courts reach a different conclusion from the Court of Appeal in London, the ban would be in a legally uncertain spot — at least until the UK Supreme Court steps in to settle it.

For lawyers who work in national security or civil liberties, this case highlights a long-running tension: the government's broad power to ban groups versus the courts' willingness to check whether protest-motivated property damage really crosses the line into terrorism. The Court of Appeal's decision suggests that judges are still giving the government a lot of room to make that call.

The graffiti read "Gaza is not 4 sale," tying the Turnberry action to the broader Israel-Gaza conflict. Whether that political message is treated as something that makes the crime worse, or as a form of protected expression, is still a dividing line in how these cases are argued.