The Home Office is appealing against the High Court’s earlier decision that the 2025 ban on Palestine Action was disproportionate to the threat posed by the group and should be revoked. The government had outlawed the organization days after activists broke into a Royal Air Force base in southern England and caused millions of pounds of damage to two military aircraft during protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Under the ban introduced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government, Palestine Action was added to a proscribed list that includes Hamas and Lebanon’s Iran-backed Hezbollah, making membership or public support for the group a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison under British terrorism laws.

Government lawyer James Eadie told the court that the earlier ruling had wrongly assessed the balance between civil liberties and public protection, arguing parliament had already determined the measure was both necessary and proportionate.“The protection of national security and of the public from terrorism was central” to the decision, Eadie said in written submissions.

He told the court that judges had failed to properly consider parliament’s judgment that the ban was “both effective and appropriate,” adding that ordinary criminal law had “demonstrably failed” to prevent an escalation in the group’s activities.

“The line between criminality, sometimes violent criminality, and terrorism is not a bright one,” Eadie said, arguing Palestine Action was “not engaged in what can be properly described as merely civil disobedience.”He said the group met the statutory definition of being involved in terrorism under British law.

The ban triggered strong criticism from civil liberties advocates and pro-Palestinian campaigners, with thousands of supporters reportedly arrested since its introduction.In February, a three-judge High Court panel ruled in favor of a legal challenge brought by Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori, finding that the prohibition had caused a “very significant interference” with rights to free expression and peaceful assembly.

Founded in 2020, Palestine Action says its objective is to end what it describes as global complicity in Israel’s actions in Palestinian territories.

The group has primarily targeted weapons manufacturers, particularly facilities linked to Israeli defense company Elbit Systems.The appeal hearing is scheduled to conclude on Thursday.

The divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the administration was likely to succeed in arguing that the Pentagon’s new credential policy, which requires reporters to be accompanied by escorts inside the building, is legally valid.

The ruling is not a final decision in the lawsuit brought by The New York Times, which challenged the policy as unconstitutional, but it temporarily suspends an April 9 order by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman that had barred the Defense Department from enforcing the escort requirement.

Friedman had ruled that the Pentagon’s revised credential policy violated journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process, saying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s team appeared to be attempting to circumvent his earlier March 20 decision ordering the restoration of Pentagon access for reporters.

He said the new rules effectively expelled all journalists from the building unless they were guided by official escorts, undermining the practical ability of the press to report independently.

Circuit Judges Justin Walker, J. Michelle Childs and Bradley Garcia heard the appeal, with Childs dissenting from the 2-1 decision.“Reporters can hardly verify sources, gather information, or speak candidly with Department personnel with an escort looming over their shoulders,” Childs wrote in her dissent.

Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell welcomed the panel’s decision and said the Pentagon looked forward to arguing the full merits of the case before the same court.In a statement posted on social media, Parnell said unrestricted access had contributed to the “regular unauthorized disclosure of sensitive and classified national defense information.”

“Since implementing the current access policy, the Department has seen a meaningful reduction in these unauthorized disclosures, which when they occur can endanger the lives of service members, intelligence personnel, and our allies,” he said.Theodore Boutrous, an attorney representing The New York Times, described the appellate ruling as a limited procedural step rather than a judgment on the broader constitutional challenge.

“This is a narrow, preliminary ruling and it casts no doubt on the strength of The Times’s constitutional arguments,” Boutrous said in a statement. “We look forward to defending the full scope of the district court’s rulings in The Times’s favor in this appeal.”The case has become a closely watched test of the balance between national security controls inside the Pentagon and longstanding press access for accredited journalists covering the U.S. military.

President Donald Trump nominated Judge Walker to the appeals court, while President Joe Biden appointed Judges Garcia and Childs. Friedman, the district judge who initially ruled for the newspaper, was appointed by former Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The complaint, lodged in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, names reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick and challenges an article published on Friday that cited anonymous sources describing what it called “conspicuous inebriation” and erratic availability during Patel’s tenure.

Patel denied the allegations in comments to Reuters, calling the report “a lie” and accusing the publication of knowingly printing false information despite receiving prior denials. “They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway,” he said.

The article, which was later retitled online, reported that early meetings had been rescheduled due to late-night drinking and that Patel was frequently unreachable, delaying investigative decisions. The report included denials from the White House, the Department of Justice and Patel himself.

In a statement, The Atlantic said it stands by its reporting and would “vigorously defend” against what it described as a meritless lawsuit.The lawsuit alleges the publication acted with “actual malice,” a legal standard requiring public figures to prove that false information was knowingly published or recklessly disregarded.

Patel’s filing argues that editors failed to adequately consider detailed rebuttals provided before publication and did not allow sufficient time for response.Legal experts note that U.S. defamation law sets a high threshold for public officials.

Deanna Shullman said proving actual malice is difficult and that failing to obtain comment alone is generally insufficient to meet the standard.The complaint also references a letter sent by Patel’s attorney, Jesse Binnall, shortly before publication requesting more time to respond to multiple allegations.

The lawsuit claims the article was published without addressing those objections.The case adds to a series of legal actions by figures linked to the administration of Donald Trump against media organizations, though courts have previously dismissed several similar defamation claims.

Local media reported Abdelli was charged with insulting state officials and offending public morals.

The decision comes amid heightened criticism from the performer toward Kais Saied, whom he has mocked in recent satirical content.Speaking from Paris, where he now resides, Abdelli said the verdict was intended to intimidate artists and suppress critical voices.

“This ruling is aimed at intimidating artists, silencing free and critical voices. It is a political verdict,” he said, adding that being sentenced over his work reflected broader concerns about freedom of expression.A court spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

Abdelli, 56, has long been known for his political satire and caricatured portrayals of Tunisia’s leaders. His performances gained prominence after the Tunisian Revolution, which led to expanded civil liberties following the ousting of former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

However, rights groups say freedoms have eroded since 2021, when Saied consolidated power and began ruling by decree. Critics argue that these measures have weakened democratic institutions and enabled prosecutions targeting journalists, activists and opposition figures.

In recent years, several opposition leaders, along with journalists and business figures, have been detained on charges including conspiracy against state security, corruption and money laundering.Saied has rejected accusations of authoritarianism, saying that freedoms remain guaranteed while emphasizing that no individual is above the law regardless of their status.

The case underscores ongoing tensions in Tunisia over the boundaries of free expression and the role of satire in political discourse more than a decade after the uprising that triggered the wider Arab Spring.

A “Notice to Appear” (NTA) was sent by ICE, marking the initial phase of a deportation process. The email, reportedly received by Taal’s legal team on Friday, invited him to present himself at the Homeland Security Investigations Office in Syracuse at a mutually agreed time for formal service of the NTA and surrender to ICE custody.

Taal’s attorneys have strongly condemned the development, labeling it an attack on free speech. They emphasized that their client had already taken legal action to prevent the deportation of foreign protesters, highlighting concerns over political retaliation. Taal has also claimed he was doxxed for his activism.

This move aligns with President Donald Trump’s hardline stance on foreign pro-Hamas demonstrators. Trump has previously vowed to deport such protesters, asserting they support Hamas and hold antisemitic views. Protesters, including some Jewish groups, reject this characterization, arguing that their advocacy for Palestinian rights is distinct from support for Hamas or antisemitism.

Taal was previously disciplined by Cornell University after he and other activists disrupted a career fair that included defense industry recruiters. Following this incident, he was ordered to continue his studies remotely.

ICE has not provided a timeline for Taal’s potential deportation and has yet to issue an official comment.

Taal’s case is not an isolated one. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student, was arrested earlier this month and is challenging his detention. Trump has publicly accused Khalil, without evidence, of supporting Hamas. Similarly, Badar Khan Suri, an Indian student at Georgetown University, was detained this week. His lawyer has denied any connection to Hamas, and a federal judge has temporarily blocked his deportation.

The administration’s intensified deportation efforts have drawn widespread condemnation from human rights organizations, which argue that these actions infringe upon free speech and the right to protest. The legal battles surrounding these cases are expected to continue as advocacy groups rally in support of the affected students.