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

The appeal judgment was handed down on Monday, July 27, 2026, by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett, and Elizabeth Bennett. The 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 in the matter, 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, approximately 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 established 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 concerned the constitutional status of section 18C itself. Hanson's legal team argued that the provision, which prohibits conduct reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" on racial or ethnic grounds, breached the implied freedom of political communication protected under the Australian Constitution. The implied freedom is not an express right written into the Constitution but a constraint on legislative power that courts have developed over time, one that restricts laws which impermissibly burden political discourse. Think of it as a speed limit on lawmakers rather than a personal entitlement that citizens can wield freely.

The broader context here is that the Full Court's rejection of Hanson's constitutional challenge carries weight beyond the immediate parties. Had the bench accepted the argument, section 18C would have faced recalibration or invalidation, with cascading effects on racial discrimination jurisprudence across Australia. The provision has long been politically contentious, with repeated calls for its reform or repeal from conservative voices who argue its thresholds chill legitimate political debate. The Full Court's affirmance settles, at the appellate level, that the statutory prohibition withstands constitutional scrutiny 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 deeper fault line at play is the enduring tension in Australian public law between anti-discrimination protections and free speech claims, one that section 18C has occupied since its enactment. The implied freedom of political communication has been invoked successfully in a small number of High Court cases to invalidate legislation, but its application to existing statutory causes of action remains limited. The Full Court's decision reinforces the principle that the freedom operates as a constraint on legislative competence rather than a personal right that overrides duly enacted law.

What remains unresolved is whether Hanson will seek special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, the terminal avenue for constitutional challenges of this nature. A grant of special leave would elevate the case to the apex court, where the interaction between section 18C and the implied freedom could receive definitive adjudication. Without such an appeal, the Full Federal Court's ruling stands as the authoritative appellate determination on the constitutional question.