Australia's Federal Court has upheld the finding that Senator Pauline Hanson racially discriminated against Senator Mehreen Faruqi, dismissing Hanson's appeal and confirming that her 2022 tweet broke the law under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The appeal judgment was delivered on Monday, July 27, 2026, by a panel of three judges: Justices Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett, and Elizabeth Bennett. Their decision upheld Justice Angus Stewart's original trial ruling, which found that Hanson engaged in "seriously offensive" and intimidating behaviour against Faruqi (The Guardian).

The case centred on a September 2022 tweet in which Hanson told Faruqi to "pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan." Faruqi, a Greens senator and the first Muslim woman to sit in any Australian parliament, had posted about the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Hanson's response was posted publicly on the platform then known as Twitter.

Justice Stewart's original trial judgment, formally cited as Faruqi v Hanson [2024] FCA 1264, was delivered in October 2024. The trial case was assigned case number NSD 372 of 2023 in the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court of Australia). Stewart J also delivered a separate evidence rulings decision, cited as [2024] FCA 225 (Federal Court of Australia). The original trial case file was finalised on 1 November 2024, with the online file last updated on 4 December 2024 (Federal Court of Australia).

Hanson launched her appeal in November 2024, about one month after the original ruling. The appeal is formally styled Pauline Hanson v Mehreen Faruqi & Anor, indicating a second respondent in addition to Faruqi (Federal Court of Australia). The Federal Court set up a dedicated online file for the appeal proceedings, which was accessible as of 23 July 2026 and updated on the day of the judgment.

The central legal question on appeal was about the constitutionality of section 18C itself. Section 18C is the part of Australian law that prohibits conduct reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Hanson's legal team argued that this provision violated something called the implied freedom of political communication.

To understand that argument, it helps to know that Australia's Constitution does not contain an explicit right to free speech. Instead, courts have developed a principle called the implied freedom of political communication, which acts as a limit on what lawmakers can do. It restricts laws that place too heavy a burden on political debate. It is more like a boundary on government power than a personal right that individuals can freely invoke.

The three-judge panel rejected Hanson's constitutional argument. This matters beyond the two senators involved. Had the court agreed with Hanson, section 18C could have been struck down or weakened, with wide-reaching effects on racial discrimination cases across Australia. The provision has long been politically contentious, with conservative voices repeatedly calling for its reform or repeal on the grounds that its thresholds chill legitimate political debate. The Full Court's decision settles, at the appellate level, that the prohibition in section 18C holds up when measured against the implied freedom.

Faruqi attended the Federal Court for the appeal judgment. Hanson did not. Following the original November 2024 ruling, Faruqi described the decision as a landmark and "a warning for people like Pauline Hanson" (The Guardian).

The broader context here is a long-running tension in Australian law between protecting people from racial discrimination and protecting free speech. Section 18C has sat at the centre of that tension since it was enacted. The implied freedom of political communication has been used successfully in a small number of High Court cases to strike down legislation, but its application to existing laws like section 18C has been limited. This decision reinforces that the freedom works as a constraint on what parliaments can legislate, not as a personal right that overrides laws already on the books.

What is not yet known is whether Hanson will seek special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, the country's highest court and the final avenue for constitutional challenges like this one. If the High Court grants special leave, the case would move to that apex court, where the relationship between section 18C and the implied freedom could receive a definitive ruling. Without such an appeal, the Full Federal Court's ruling stands as the last word on the constitutional question.