High Court Deems Australia's Immigration Monitoring Laws Unconstitutional
In a significant legal blow to the Albanese government, Australia's High Court has once again struck down stringent laws targeting former immigration detainees, specifically the NZYQ group. The ruling mandates the immediate removal of ankle bracelets and the cessation of curfews for 43 individuals who have already served prison sentences but were subject to ongoing monitoring.
Court Ruling Details and Immediate Impacts
The court found that the preventative detention regime, amended in November 2024, is inconsistent with the Australian constitution and therefore invalid. This decision means that those under electronic monitoring and curfew conditions will no longer be required to wear ankle bracelets or adhere to curfews. Instead, they must regularly report to officials. The ruling affects 43 people currently wearing ankle bracelets in the community.
Chief Justice Stephen Gageler, along with a majority of the court's seven justices, delivered the judgment. Justice Michelle Gordon emphasized in her reasons that the law's purpose of protecting the community from harm is insufficient. She stated that any justification for ongoing monitoring must be exceptional, such as preventing a terrorist attack, which was not met in this case.
Background of the Case and Political Reactions
The case was brought by a Papua New Guinea citizen, known as EGH19 in court documents, who arrived in Australia in 2000 and was convicted of murder in 2006 as a minor. After being offered a protection visa in 2022, it was cancelled in 2024 following guilty pleas to domestic violence offences. Released on parole in December 2024, he was placed in immigration detention in April 2025 and subjected to ankle bracelet monitoring and a curfew.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke responded to the ruling by expressing gratitude for a $2.5 billion deal with Nauru to remove the NZYQ cohort from Australia. He noted that under this arrangement, the government can apply for 30-year Nauruan visas for those released on bridging visas, pending removal. Guardian Australia reports at least six men have already been relocated to a former regional processing centre on Nauru.
Shadow Home Affairs Minister Jonathon Duniam criticized the government, stating that they were assured the laws would withstand high court challenges. He called for new legislation to address the issue, highlighting the opposition's willingness to collaborate.
Criticism from Advocacy Groups
Jana Favero, deputy chief executive of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, condemned the government for making rushed laws without regard for fairness or the constitution. She argued that these politicized punishments have disrupted the lives of individuals based solely on their birthplace.
Greg Barns SC, spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, accused the government of succumbing to populist scare-mongering by media and political opponents. He praised the decision as a reminder that only courts have the constitutional power to impose punishments, not governments.
Historical Context and Broader Implications
The preventative detention regime was introduced in late 2023 after the High Court ruled indefinite detention unlawful, leading to the release of 92 people, including refugees and stateless individuals. A larger cohort of over 300 in long-term detention was also released. In November 2024, the court found the subsequent monitoring regime unconstitutional, prompting amendments to limit conditions to those posing a substantial risk of serious harm.
As of June 2025, there were 346 bridging visa removal holders. EGH19 was among 46 subject to both ankle bracelets and a 10pm-6am curfew, with 41 others under ankle monitoring and one solely under curfew. This ruling underscores ongoing tensions between government policies and constitutional protections in Australia's immigration system.
