18/03/2026

The Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) has welcomed today’s High Court ruling that restrictions such as curfews and electronic monitoring bracelets imposed on people released from indefinite immigration detention are unconstitutional.

The High Court handed down its decision today in a challenge to the imposition of monitoring and curfew conditions by the Government on a cohort of men released last year after another High Court decision handed down in November 2024 found that they could not be indefinitely detained under the Migration Act. At the time the ALA condemned the Government’s (supported by the Coalition opposition) planned restrictions as we believed that they were punitive.

In the case of EGH19 v Commonwealth of Australia [2026] HCA 7, the High Court found that restrictions imposed on an individual released from indefinite immigration detention - measures the government argued were reasonable and necessary to protect the community - are incompatible with the Constitution.

“This is an important decision not just for those immediately impacted by these unlawful measures, but it is a broader reminder to governments that it is only the courts that have the constitutional power to impose punishments,” said Greg Barns SC, spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance.

“Today’s decision is a win for the rule of law and a reminder that governments cannot impose punishment outside the judicial process.

“The Government panicked after the Court’s earlier decision in YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, and played politics with this small cohort of men. It succumbed to populist scare mongering by the media and its political opponents.

“This case shows the dangers than can arise when governments rush complex legislation through the parliament - another example being the recent hate speech laws.

“The Government should have provided appropriate wrap-around support for people being released from indefinite immigration detention. Instead, it designed punitive measures that adversely affect individuals and overstep the constitutional limits on executive power.

“Legislators should be focusing on supporting vulnerable individuals in our community who cannot return to their country of birth or to a third country rather than using Nauru as a ‘dumping ground’.”