Australia’s highest court has delivered a decisive verdict in a case that has sparked heated debate over free speech, national security, and the boundaries of political discourse. On Wednesday, October 15, 2025, the High Court unanimously upheld the government’s refusal to grant a visa to Candace Owens, a controversial U.S. political commentator and prominent MAGA influencer, citing concerns that her presence could incite discord and threaten the national interest.
The decision brings to a close a legal battle that began in October 2024, when Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke denied Owens’ visa application ahead of a planned national speaking tour. Burke’s reasoning was blunt: Owens, with her history of inflammatory rhetoric and an online following exceeding 18 million across platforms like X, YouTube, and Instagram, posed a risk to social cohesion in Australia. According to Politico, Burke stated that Owens had made “extremist and inflammatory comments towards Muslim, Black, Jewish and LGBTQIA+ communities which generate controversy and hatred.”
Owens, known for her outspoken conservative views and provocative statements—including the baseless claim that the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron is a man—challenged the visa rejection. Her legal team argued that the decision violated the implied freedom of political communication enshrined in the Australian Constitution and that the minister had misapplied the law. But the High Court was unconvinced.
In a published judgment, the court made clear that Australia’s Migration Act empowers the government to protect the community from individuals who might “stir up or encourage dissension or strife on political matters.” The law, the justices wrote, is triggered when a visa applicant is likely to “stir up strife or dissension in the Australian community” that could lead to harm or danger. “In the absence of evidence, or agreed facts, it is not obvious that the opportunity to hear Ms Farmer speak in Australia (the so-called ‘lightning bolt’ effect) could add anything to political communication in Australia,” the court stated, referring to Owens by her married name.
Home Affairs Minister Burke’s decision was rooted in a “reasonable suspicion” that Owens failed the Migration Act’s character test. According to court documents, Burke found clear evidence that Owens’ use of online platforms had the potential to “lead to increased hate crimes, radicalisation of individuals and heightened tensions in communities.” The minister concluded that allowing her entry would be “against the national interest due to her controversial and conspiratorial views.”
Owens’ lawyers countered that the character test was dangerously broad—so much so that it could be wielded to exclude any non-mainstream political figure whose views sparked division. Perry Herzfeld SC, representing Owens, argued in the High Court that the threshold for “inciting discord” was “very much in the eye of the beholder,” warning that it could be used to keep out anyone likely to “stimulate debate … the minister doesn’t like.”
The High Court, however, was unequivocal. In a separate judgment, Justice James Edelman wrote, “Ms Owens’ … submissions should be emphatically rejected.” The court found that the Migration Act’s character requirements are not an infringement on the implied freedom of political communication. As Politico reported, the court emphasized that this freedom “is not a ‘personal right,’ is not unlimited and is not absolute.”
Australia’s Constitution, unlike that of the United States, does not explicitly guarantee free speech. Instead, the High Court has previously recognized an implied freedom of political communication, but it is circumscribed by other considerations, such as public safety and order. The justices reiterated that the Migration Act is designed to protect the Australian community from visitors who might “stir up or encourage dissension or strife on political matters.”
The government’s concerns were not merely theoretical. Court documents noted that Owens had been named in the manifesto of the man who carried out the 2019 massacre at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. While there is no suggestion Owens endorsed or incited the attack, the reference underscored the potential for her rhetoric to resonate with extremists. Burke, in his decision, cited advice from Australia’s security apparatus, stating, “In the current environment where the Australian community is experiencing heightened community tensions, as per the advice of Australia’s security apparatus, I find that there is a risk that [Owens’] controversial views will amplify grievances among communities and lead to increased hostility and violent or radical action.”
For Owens, the High Court’s ruling is a stinging rebuke. Not only was her visa refusal upheld, but she was also ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. The outcome highlights the stark differences between Australia’s and America’s approaches to free speech and immigration. In the U.S., the First Amendment protects even the most provocative political speech, but in Australia, the government has broader discretion to limit entry by individuals deemed a threat to social harmony.
The case has ignited debate across the political spectrum. Supporters of the government’s decision argue that Australia is right to prioritize community safety and prevent the spread of hate speech, especially at a time of heightened tensions. Critics, however, warn that the character test could become a tool for suppressing dissent and excluding controversial voices, regardless of their political leanings.
Owens’ vast online influence—her social media reach eclipses that of many mainstream politicians—was a central factor in the government’s calculus. The court agreed that the potential for her rhetoric to “stir up strife or dissension” was not merely hypothetical, given the documented impact of online platforms in spreading extremist views and fomenting division.
Ultimately, the High Court’s decision affirms the government’s authority to act preemptively in the face of perceived threats to the social fabric. The judgment sends a clear message: while Australia values robust political debate, it draws the line at speech that officials believe could incite hatred or violence.
In the wake of the ruling, Owens remains barred from entering Australia, her speaking tour indefinitely shelved. For her supporters, the case is a cautionary tale about the limits of free speech abroad. For Australian officials, it’s a reaffirmation of the country’s commitment to maintaining order and protecting vulnerable communities.
The story of Candace Owens’ failed bid to enter Australia is a vivid illustration of how nations grapple with the challenges posed by global influencers, divisive rhetoric, and the ever-blurring lines between free expression and public safety. As debates over speech and national security continue to play out worldwide, the High Court’s decision stands as a landmark moment in Australia’s ongoing effort to balance openness with vigilance.
