UK Court of Appeal Restores Terrorist Designation of Palestine Action

The United Kingdom's Court of Appeal upheld the ban on Palestine Action as a terrorist organization on June 15, 2026, overturning a February 13 High Court ruling that had struck down the designation. The decision closes one chapter in a legal battle that has now run through three court tiers and remains under separate judicial review in Scotland (American Society of International Law).

"Proscription" is the legal term for adding an organization to an official banned list. Once on that list, simply being a member, offering support, or even displaying the group's symbols becomes a criminal offense.

The case traces back to March 2025, when Palestine Action was accused of vandalizing the Trump Turnberry golf resort in Scotland. The actions included spray-painting "Gaza is not 4 sale" on the golf course (The Guardian). Then-U.S. President Donald Trump labeled the accused protesters "terrorists" in the aftermath of the incident (The Guardian).

Three months later, in June 2025, the U.K. government moved to ban Palestine Action under terrorism legislation (New York Times). The proscription order added Palestine Action to the list of Proscribed Organisations under Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service).

The legal challenge has proceeded on parallel tracks in England and Scotland, which operate separate court systems within the U.K. In Scotland, the Court of Session — the country's highest civil court — ruled on January 27, 2026 that a judicial review into the proscription would go ahead (BBC News). That case, registered as P1017-25, concerns the 2025 Order that added Palestine Action to the proscribed list under Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service).

Meanwhile, in England, the High Court ruled on February 13, 2026 against the proscription, a decision the Court of Appeal then reversed on June 15, 2026 (American Society of International Law).

The litigation timeline reveals a closely contested legal question. The High Court's February judgment found grounds to reject the proscription, only for the Court of Appeal to reach the opposite conclusion four months later. The Scottish judicial review, permitted to proceed by the Court of Session in January, adds a further layer of scrutiny operating under a separate jurisdictional framework.

The broader context here matters for understanding how this case fits into the U.K.'s counterterrorism architecture. The Terrorism Act 2000 allows the Home Secretary — the government minister responsible for domestic security — to proscribe organizations believed to be involved in terrorism, a term defined broadly under the statute to include serious property damage intended to advance a political, religious, or ideological cause. The threshold for proscription is thus unusually low relative to ordinary criminal liability, which is precisely what makes judicial review of such orders consequential. Think of it as a lower bar for the government to clear than would apply in a standard criminal prosecution, because the consequences of listing reach far beyond individual criminal charges.

What distinguishes the Palestine Action case is the speed with which the government acted after a single act of property damage at a politically connected site, and the fact that the designation has survived appellate review despite the High Court's initial skepticism. The Turnberry resort's ownership by a former and current U.S. president adds a diplomatic dimension, though the legal proceedings have addressed the proscription on statutory rather than political grounds.

The Scottish judicial review in case P1017-25 remains live. With the Court of Appeal in London having upheld the ban, the Court of Session's eventual determination on the same underlying order will test whether Scotland's courts reach a different conclusion on the same statutory instrument. Divergent outcomes across the two jurisdictions would place the proscription in legally uncertain territory, at least until resolved by the U.K. Supreme Court.

For practitioners in national security law and civil liberties, the case sharpens a long-running tension: the breadth of executive discretion under the Terrorism Act 2000 versus the courts' willingness to scrutinize whether protest-motivated property damage crosses the statutory threshold for terrorism. The Court of Appeal's reversal of the High Court signals that, at the appellate level, the government's judgment on that threshold continues to be accorded significant deference — meaning judges are reluctant to second-guess the Home Secretary's call.

The quoted graffiti, "Gaza is not 4 sale," reflects the group's stated political motivation tying the Turnberry action to the broader Israel-Gaza conflict. Whether that political framing is treated as aggravating context or protected expression remains a fault line in how proscription cases are argued and decided.