Australia’s highest court has delivered a decisive blow to U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens, rejecting her challenge to the government’s decision to deny her a visa last year. The ruling, handed down on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, by a unanimous panel of three High Court judges, puts an end to Owens’ hopes of launching a speaking tour across Australia and New Zealand that had been planned for November 2024, according to the Associated Press.
The controversy began in October 2024, when Australia’s Minister for Home Affairs, Tony Burke, invoked his powers under the country’s Migration Act to refuse Owens a visa. Burke cited the so-called "character test," arguing that Owens posed a risk of inciting discord in the Australian community. Court documents reveal Burke’s reasoning: he believed that refusing Owens entry was in the national interest, given her reputation for "controversial and conspiratorial views" and a record of making "extremist and inflammatory comments towards Muslim, Black, Jewish and LGBTQIA+ communities which generate controversy and hatred."
Burke’s concerns were not made in a vacuum. As reported by AP, the minister noted that Australia’s terrorism threat level had been raised from "possible" to "probable" last year, and the nation’s domestic spy agency had observed an "increase in extremism." Burke argued that, while Owens already had a substantial online presence—boasting 18 million followers across various social media platforms—her physical presence in Australia would amplify the potential for discord.
"Inciting discord might be the way some people make money, but it’s not welcome in Australia," Burke said pointedly in a public statement after the High Court’s ruling. He described the outcome as a "win for social cohesion," doubling down on the government’s commitment to maintaining public order and harmony.
Owens, well-known in the United States for her outspoken conservative views and controversial rhetoric, had intended to use her Australian tour as a platform for her political commentary and activism. According to court documents, her public statements in the past have drawn sharp criticism for targeting minority groups and stoking social division. The government’s decision to block her entry was, therefore, not simply a matter of bureaucratic procedure but a pointed response to what it saw as a tangible threat to the country’s social fabric.
Owens’ legal team mounted a robust defense, challenging the constitutionality of the Migration Act itself. Their primary argument centered on the claim that the Act infringed upon Australia’s implied freedom of political communication—a right recognized by the High Court as inherent to the country’s democratic system, though not as expansive as the First Amendment protections found in the United States. Owens’ attorneys contended that, as a democracy, Australia’s constitution should shield political speech, even if it is highly controversial or unpopular.
However, the High Court was not persuaded. As detailed by AP and wire reports, the judges rejected the notion that the Migration Act was unconstitutional. They reaffirmed that while Australia does have an implied freedom of political communication, this freedom is not absolute and can be limited where necessary to protect other compelling interests, such as public safety and social cohesion. The court also dismissed the secondary argument that Minister Burke had misconstrued his legal powers under the Act in refusing Owens’ visa.
In a final blow to Owens and her supporters, the High Court ordered her to pay the government’s court costs—a clear signal of the judiciary’s confidence in the government’s position and the robustness of its legal reasoning.
The decision has sparked debate both within Australia and abroad. Supporters of the government’s stance argue that the ruling is a necessary check on the importation of divisive rhetoric at a time when the country is grappling with heightened concerns over extremism and social unrest. They point to the rise in Australia’s terrorism threat level and the warnings from intelligence agencies as evidence that the government must be vigilant in protecting the community from external sources of division.
Critics, on the other hand, see the decision as a troubling precedent for free speech in a democratic society. They argue that denying a visa on the basis of political views, however controversial, risks stifling open debate and could be used to silence dissenting voices in the future. Owens’ legal team, echoing these concerns, insisted that the Migration Act’s broad discretionary powers could be misapplied to suppress legitimate political discourse.
Yet, as legal analysts have noted, Australia’s constitutional framework differs significantly from that of the United States. While the U.S. First Amendment enshrines a sweeping right to free speech, Australia’s protections are more limited and subject to balancing against other societal interests. The High Court’s decision thus reflects a uniquely Australian approach to the perennial tension between liberty and security.
For Owens herself, the ruling is a significant setback. According to her spokeswoman, Owens intends to comment on the court’s decision later on social media. As of publication, she had not yet issued a public statement, but her past responses to similar controversies suggest she is unlikely to let the matter rest quietly.
The case has also drawn attention to the broader issue of how democracies should handle the rise of global political influencers whose messages can cross borders instantly via digital platforms. Burke’s argument that Owens’ online reach already poses a challenge—one that would only be exacerbated by her physical presence—raises difficult questions about the limits of national sovereignty in the age of social media. Should governments have the authority to bar entry to individuals whose speech is deemed dangerous, even if that speech is widely accessible online? Or does such action risk eroding the very freedoms that democracies are built to protect?
As the dust settles on the High Court’s ruling, Australia finds itself at the center of a global debate over free speech, immigration, and the responsibilities of democratic governments in an increasingly interconnected world. The outcome of Owens’ case is likely to reverberate far beyond her own travel plans, prompting renewed discussion about the boundaries of political expression and the role of the state in safeguarding social harmony.
With the court’s decision now final and Owens’ tour officially off the table, attention shifts to how Australia will continue to navigate these complex issues in the years ahead. For now, the government’s message is clear: when it comes to inciting discord, the welcome mat is firmly rolled up.