One Nation leader Pauline Hanson will take her free speech fight to the nation's highest court after the High Court on Thursday granted her special leave to appeal a finding that her 2022 tweet to Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi breached section 18C.

The decision does not overturn anything. The finding against Hanson stands, and the full appeal will be argued at a later hearing, for which no date has been set.

Hanson welcomed the result on X, casting the case as a contest over the right of Australians to argue in public.

I welcome the High Court’s decision to grant special leave to appeal in my section 18C case.

This case has always been bigger than me and bigger than one tweet. Australians must be able to speak their minds, question their government and disagree with each other without being… pic.twitter.com/ckOL59DRDF

— Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺 (@PaulineHansonOz) November 5, 2026

"This case has always been bigger than me and bigger than one tweet," she wrote. "Australians must be able to speak their minds, question their government and disagree with each other without being frightened into silence."

She tied the case to wider debate over online speech, saying that freedom was "under attack, including through Labor's Digital Duty of Care Bill and its threat to lawful debate online," and added that she looked forward to "putting our arguments to the Court about freedom of speech and the constitutional protection of political communication."

Go Ad Free

The dispute dates to September 2022, when Faruqi offered condolences "to those who knew the Queen" but said she could not "mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples." Hanson replied with a post telling the senator to "pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan."

Faruqi sued under Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. On 1 November 2024, in Faruqi v Hanson [2024] FCA 1264, Justice Angus Stewart of the Federal Court found Hanson had breached section 18C. He ruled the tweet was not protected by the exemptions in section 18D and ordered Hanson to delete it within seven days and pay Faruqi's legal costs. No damages were awarded.

Hanson appealed. On 27 July 2026 a Full Federal Court bench of Justices Perry, Kennett and Bennett unanimously dismissed her appeal, rejecting all seven of her grounds and holding that Part IIA is supported by the Commonwealth's external affairs power and does not infringe the implied freedom of political communication. The costs of that appeal were reserved.

Speaking outside court that day, Faruqi said the judgment confirmed "that indeed Pauline Hanson behaved in racism, Islamophobia and hate."

Hanson applied to the High Court for special leave in August. Her case now rests on two constitutional grounds: that the Commonwealth lacked the power to enact Part IIA, and that the provisions breach the implied freedom of political communication.

In her application, Hanson argued the High Court had never tested the validity of the relevant sections, and that its own justices have been divided over whether suppressing speech that offends, insults or humiliates is a legitimate purpose for legislation. She also submitted that a dispute between two sitting senators over political speech raised a question of public importance.

Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey has been critical of the Full Court's reasoning. "It does not take into account the most recent judgements of the High Court of Australia on implied freedom," she said this week.

The fight has come at a price. Hanson has put her legal exposure at close to $900,000 and has launched a legal defence fund to help cover it.

The respondents to the appeal are Faruqi and the Commonwealth Attorney-General.

#BREAKING: One Nation leader Pauline Hanson to appeal racial discrimination finding in High Court. https://t.co/196XiHaq9h

— ABC News (@abcnews) November 5, 2026

Senator Faruqi had not commented publicly on the decision at the time of writing. The High Court is yet to list the matter for hearing.