One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has suffered a significant legal defeat after the Full Federal Court unanimously dismissed her appeal against a ruling that found she racially discriminated against Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi, while also rejecting a constitutional challenge to one of Australia’s most debated anti-discrimination laws.

The judgment means Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 remains intact after what legal observers have described as its most substantial constitutional test since the provision was introduced more than three decades ago.

The appeal was heard by Justices Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett and Elizabeth Bennett, who unanimously upheld the original findings made by Justice Angus Stewart in November 2024. In a detailed judgment extending to more than 430 paragraphs, the Full Court concluded that Hanson’s arguments should be dismissed in their entirety.

The legal dispute stems from a social media exchange in September 2022, shortly after the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

Following comments by Senator Faruqi criticising aspects of Britain’s colonial legacy, Hanson responded on social media by telling the Greens senator to “pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan”.

Faruqi, who migrated to Australia from Pakistan and became the first Muslim woman elected to an Australian parliament, subsequently launched legal action, arguing the post breached Section 18C because it was reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person because of their race or ethnic origin.

Justice Stewart ruled in 2024 that the statement relied upon a well-known racist trope suggesting migrants do not truly belong in Australia and should “go back” to their country of birth. He found the post unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act and ordered Hanson to remove it.

Rather than accepting the decision, Hanson appealed both the factual findings and the broader constitutional validity of Section 18C.

Her legal team argued that the provision imposed an impermissible burden on the implied freedom of political communication recognised by the Australian Constitution.

The Full Court rejected that submission.

The judges concluded that Section 18C serves a legitimate public purpose by protecting Australians against racial discrimination while remaining compatible with Australia’s constitutional system of representative government. They found the law appropriately balances freedom of political communication with Parliament’s objective of preventing racially discriminatory public conduct.

The ruling is regarded as particularly significant because it reinforces earlier judicial interpretations of Section 18C and clarifies that political debate does not provide blanket protection for racially discriminatory statements.

Australian constitutional law recognises an implied freedom of political communication, but unlike the United States’ First Amendment, it is not an unlimited individual right to free speech. Instead, it operates as a restriction on legislative power where laws unnecessarily burden Australia’s system of representative democracy.

The Full Court concluded that Section 18C did not exceed those constitutional limits.

Outside the courtroom, Senator Faruqi welcomed the judgment, describing it as a victory extending well beyond her own case.

She said the decision sent a clear message that racist abuse has no place in Australia’s democracy and argued that public office should never shield individuals from accountability when engaging in unlawful discriminatory conduct.

“Hate speech is not free speech,” Faruqi said after the judgment, adding that the case demonstrated Australia’s legal system could protect people from racial vilification while preserving robust political debate.

Hanson, who was not present when judgment was delivered, said she was disappointed with the outcome but indicated the legal battle was not necessarily over.

In a statement released following the decision, she said her legal team would carefully review the judgment before deciding whether to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

She argued the case had always been about broader principles rather than a single social media post.

“It’s about the people themselves having the right to have an opinion,” Hanson said, maintaining that Australians should be free to express political views without fear of litigation.

If Hanson proceeds, the High Court would not automatically hear the matter.

She would first need to obtain special leave, a process reserved for cases involving important questions of law or matters of public significance. The High Court grants only a relatively small proportion of such applications each year.

Legal commentators note that while constitutional issues often attract close attention, obtaining special leave remains a significant hurdle.

The litigation has also carried substantial financial consequences.

Hanson has previously indicated the proceedings have already cost her close to $900,000 in legal expenses, although the final amount payable will ultimately depend on costs orders made by the court.

Because she has now lost both the original trial and the appeal, she may be required to contribute to Faruqi’s legal costs in addition to her own. A further hearing will determine the precise costs orders.

The case has reignited long-running political debate surrounding Section 18C.

The provision was introduced by the Keating government through amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act in 1995 and makes certain public acts unlawful where they are reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

Supporters argue the law provides essential protection for multicultural Australia by discouraging racial abuse and reinforcing equal participation in public life.

Critics, however, have long argued that the wording sets too low a threshold and risks discouraging robust political discussion.

The debate reached national prominence in 2017 when the Turnbull government proposed amending Section 18C by replacing the words “offend” and “insult” with narrower terminology. The proposal was ultimately defeated after Labor, the Greens and several crossbench senators opposed the changes.

The latest judgment is therefore likely to have consequences extending well beyond Hanson herself.

By unanimously rejecting the constitutional challenge, the Full Federal Court has strengthened the legal position supporting Section 18C and may make future constitutional challenges more difficult.

Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner welcomed the decision, describing it as an important affirmation of legal protections against racism and noting that the judgment reinforces confidence in Australia’s anti-discrimination framework.

Free speech advocates, meanwhile, expressed disappointment with the ruling.

The Institute of Public Affairs argued the decision demonstrates that Section 18C continues to impose unnecessary limits on political debate and renewed calls for Parliament to repeal or substantially amend the legislation rather than relying solely on future litigation.

For Hanson, the decision represents another high-profile legal setback during a period in which One Nation has remained a significant force in Australian politics.

The Queensland senator has consistently maintained that political expression should receive broader constitutional protection and has repeatedly criticised Section 18C throughout her parliamentary career.

Whether the High Court ultimately agrees to hear the matter remains uncertain. Even if special leave is granted, Hanson would still face the difficult task of persuading Australia’s highest court that the Full Federal Court erred both in its interpretation of Section 18C and in its constitutional analysis.

Until then, the Full Federal Court’s decision stands as one of the most significant judicial endorsements of Australia’s racial discrimination laws in recent years.

For Senator Faruqi, the judgment represents the culmination of nearly four years of litigation arising from a single social media post. For Hanson, it leaves one final legal avenue still open. And for Australia’s legal system, the decision reinforces the continuing tension between protecting political communication and safeguarding individuals from racial discrimination—an issue that is likely to remain at the centre of public debate well beyond this case.