In a landmark decision on October 15, 2025, Australia’s High Court unanimously upheld the government’s refusal to grant U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens a visa, citing concerns that her presence could incite discord and threaten social cohesion. The ruling, delivered by a full bench of justices, marks the end of a nearly year-long legal battle that has drawn international attention and reignited debates over free speech, immigration, and national security in Australia.
Owens, a 36-year-old right-wing influencer, author, and podcast host known for her provocative and conspiratorial views, had planned to embark on a speaking tour across Australia in November 2024. The tour was set to include events in major cities and a subsequent visit to neighboring New Zealand. However, her plans were derailed in October 2024 when Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke exercised special powers under the Migration Act to deny her visa application on character grounds.
According to AP, Burke’s decision was rooted in the assessment that Owens posed a risk of “inciting discord in the Australian community,” a determination based on her history of making “extremist and inflammatory comments toward Muslim, Black, Jewish and LGBTQIA+ communities which generate controversy and hatred.” Court documents revealed that Burke believed refusing Owens entry was in the national interest, especially as Australia’s terrorism threat level had recently been elevated from “possible” to “probable,” with the national domestic spy agency reporting an uptick in extremism.
Burke elaborated on his rationale in a statement quoted by The Guardian: “From downplaying the impact of the Holocaust with comments about Mengele through to claims that Muslims started slavery, Candace Owens has the capacity to incite discord in almost every direction. Australia’s national interest is best served when Candace Owens is somewhere else.”
Owens, whose online following exceeds 18 million across various platforms, did not take the decision lightly. She and her legal team challenged the visa refusal in the High Court, arguing that the Migration Act’s “character test” was unconstitutional because it infringed upon an implied freedom of political communication. Australia, unlike the United States, does not have an explicit constitutional right to free speech. Instead, its High Court has recognized a more limited, implied freedom related specifically to governmental and political matters.
Her lawyers contended that the character test could be wielded to exclude non-mainstream political views, potentially stifling robust debate and dissent. Perry Herzfeld SC, representing Owens, argued in May that the threshold for “inciting discord” was so broad it could capture mere disagreements or vigorous debate, making the minister’s discretion “very much in the eye of the beholder.”
But the High Court was unmoved. In their joint judgment, Justices Stephen Gageler, Michelle Gordon, and Robert Beech-Jones wrote, “The implied freedom is not a ‘personal right’, is not unlimited and is not absolute.” They unanimously held that the minister had not misconstrued his powers under the Migration Act and that the law itself did not violate the constitution. Justice James Edelman, in a separate opinion, emphatically rejected Owens’s submissions and cited philosopher Isaiah Berlin: “Freedom of some must at times be curtailed to secure the freedom of others.”
The court’s summary, as reported by POLITICO, made clear that the relevant section of the Migration Act applies in cases where there is a risk that a person would “stir up or encourage dissension or strife in the Australian community, or a segment of that community, of a kind or to a degree that is harmful to that community or segment.” The judgment concluded that Owens’s controversial rhetoric—including remarks on the Holocaust, antiracism, Black Lives Matter, anti-Semitism, women’s and LGBTQ rights, COVID-19, and anti-vaccination—posed such a risk.
In the aftermath of the ruling, Owens was ordered to pay the government’s legal costs. Her spokesman told AP that she would comment on the decision via social media later in the week, but as of press time, no public statement had been released.
Minister Burke welcomed the decision, calling it “a win for social cohesion.” He added, “Inciting discord might be the way some people make money, but it’s not welcome in Australia.” Burke’s approach reflects a longstanding Australian policy of using broad discretion under the character test to refuse temporary visas to foreign nationals considered a risk to public order or safety.
The Owens case is not isolated. In July 2025, Burke similarly revoked the visa of U.S. rapper Ye (formerly Kanye West) after he released a single titled “Heil Hitler,” citing concerns that his presence would promote Nazi ideology. Ye had previously traveled to Australia, where his wife was born, but the government decided that recent events rendered his visit contrary to the national interest. As Reuters and The Guardian noted, Australia’s willingness to bar high-profile figures on character grounds has become more pronounced in recent years, especially amid heightened concerns over extremism and hate speech.
Owens’s visa denial also had ripple effects across the Tasman Sea. New Zealand initially followed Australia’s lead and refused her entry in November 2024. However, a New Zealand immigration official later overturned the decision in December, citing “the importance of free speech.” Despite this reversal, Owens’s spokesman confirmed she would not proceed with a New Zealand tour.
The episode has sparked a new round of debate over the boundaries of free speech and the powers of government to regulate entry based on ideological grounds. Supporters of the High Court’s decision argue that Australia has a duty to protect its diverse communities from imported hate and extremism, especially in a climate of rising global tensions. Critics, including Owens’s legal team, warn that such broad powers risk suppressing dissent and could be misused against individuals whose views simply challenge the mainstream.
Australia’s Department of Home Affairs defines “good character” as reflecting the enduring moral qualities of a person, and the Migration Act gives the minister sweeping authority to act in the national interest. As the High Court affirmed, these powers are not without limits, but the threshold for exclusion remains high—requiring a clear risk of harm to the community.
For now, the High Court’s ruling stands as a clear signal that, in the balance between free expression and social harmony, Australia is prepared to prioritize the latter when it comes to who is allowed to cross its borders.