On February 13, 2026, the High Court in London delivered a judgment that sent shockwaves through the United Kingdom’s political and activist circles: the government’s decision to designate the protest group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization was ruled unlawful and disproportionate. Yet, in a twist that left both supporters and critics on edge, the ban remains in effect for now, pending the government’s appeal. The case has become a lightning rod for debates about free speech, protest rights, and the boundaries of government power in Britain.
Palestine Action, a direct-action campaign group, has been at the center of controversy since its founding in 2020. The group is known for its high-profile protests targeting the UK subsidiary of Israel’s largest arms manufacturer, Elbit Systems. Its activists have carried out 385 direct actions, including a headline-grabbing break-in at a Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire, where they sprayed military planes with red paint to protest British military support for Israel. According to CBS News, officials say the group’s activities have caused millions of pounds in damage and have affected national security.
Last June, the UK government, under then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, proscribed Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws. The move placed the group on the same legal footing as organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIS, making membership or public support for Palestine Action a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The government’s decision followed the RAF base incident and was intended, according to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, to address what was seen as organized political violence. "The proscription of Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process, endorsed by Parliament," Mahmood said in a statement reported by BBC News.
The ban triggered an immediate backlash from civil liberties groups and human rights advocates, who argued that it criminalized legitimate political dissent and protest. More than 2,000 people, including many elderly and disabled individuals, have been arrested since the ban’s enforcement in July 2025, according to Al Jazeera. Some 694 protesters were charged with allegedly showing support for the group, an offense that can result in up to six months in jail. Many of those arrested had simply held signs reading, "I oppose genocide – I support Palestine Action" during silent vigils across the UK.
Palestine Action’s co-founder Huda Ammori, who led the legal challenge against the ban, celebrated the High Court’s decision as a watershed moment. In a statement, Ammori called the ruling "a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people, striking down a decision that will forever be remembered as one of the most extreme attacks on free speech in recent British history." She also condemned the government’s move as "a Trumpian abuse of power" and warned that any appeal would be "profoundly unjust" for the thousands of protesters still facing prosecution.
The High Court’s ruling, delivered by judges Victoria Sharp, Jonathan Swift, and Karen Steyn, was clear in its reasoning. While acknowledging that Palestine Action used criminality to promote its aims, the judges found that "the nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities did not meet the level, scale and persistence that would justify proscription" as a terrorist group. The court noted that only a very small number of the group’s actions could be considered acts of terrorism, and that standard criminal law was sufficient to prosecute these cases. Crucially, the ruling found that the government had acted disproportionately and had interfered with the rights to freedom of speech and assembly.
The court also highlighted failures in the government’s process. According to BBC News, the judges found that former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had not fully considered the impact the ban would have on the right to protest, nor had she fully followed her own policies regarding the threshold for proscribing organizations under the Terrorism Act. The decision, the court said, had a chilling effect: people were likely to "adjust their behaviour" to avoid the risk of committing a crime, as evidenced by Ammori’s fear of being "no-platformed" at public events.
Despite the victory for Palestine Action, the legal limbo remains. The ban stays in place while the government prepares its appeal, with a hearing set for February 20. Home Secretary Mahmood made clear her intention to fight the judgment, stating, "I am disappointed by the court’s decision and disagree with the notion that banning this terrorist organisation is disproportionate. I intend to fight this judgment in the Court of Appeal." The Metropolitan Police, recognizing the "unusual circumstances," announced that officers would focus on gathering evidence of offenses related to support for Palestine Action, rather than making immediate arrests, until the legal situation is clarified.
The ruling has intensified political debate. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp argued that Palestine Action had engaged in "organised political violence and cannot be tolerated," and welcomed the government’s appeal. In contrast, Liberal Democrats home affairs spokesman Max Wilkinson criticized the ban as "a grave misuse of terrorism laws," warning that placing the group in the same legal category as Islamic State risked undermining public trust and civil liberties. Green Party leader Zack Polanski welcomed the court’s decision and called for the charges against those supporting Palestine Action to be dropped. Jewish community organizations, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, expressed concern about the ruling and supported the government’s plan to appeal.
For activists and supporters, the decision was met with jubilation outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Artist Nicola Moxham, who had been arrested for supporting the group, described the ruling as "an absolute triumph for direct action in support of Palestine Action and opposing, most importantly, the genocide of Palestinians and destruction of Gaza." Her husband, John Moxham, a retired professor of medicine, called the ban "a total travesty" and said, "There ought to be a lot of resignations of government ministers. The prime minister and [Justice Secretary] David Lammy have got a lot of blood on their hands," as reported by Al Jazeera.
Campaign group CAGE International hailed the ruling as "a decisive rejection of attempts to shield corporations complicit in arming the genocide in Gaza." Anas Mustapha, the group’s head of public advocacy, remarked, "Today’s decision is the correct legal outcome, though it was secured only through principled sacrifice and collective will." He argued that the ruling should lead to the withdrawal of charges against all Palestine Action activists and the thousands who participated in civil disobedience.
As the legal battle continues, the case of Palestine Action has become a touchstone for broader questions about the limits of protest, the use of anti-terror laws, and the role of government in policing dissent. The outcome of the appeal—and the fate of thousands still facing prosecution—will be closely watched in Britain and beyond.