UK government legally challenged over IHRA antisemitism definition being adopted in British schools

The UK government is facing a legal challenge for encouraging English schools and colleges to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism as part of a sweeping package of reforms.

The recommendation followed a review of antisemitism in schools and colleges in England which said schools and colleges across England must recognize antisemitism as a distinct category of harm.

The review revealed that one-in-five students overall reported witnessing antisemitism, while many cases went entirely unreported by students and teachers due to a lack of confidence that the incidents would be properly addressed.However, lawfare NGO the Good Law Project has announced its plans to sue the UK government over the IHRA policy.Following alleged talks with "Palestinian parents and students, as well as academics," Good Law wrote to the UK government on Monday setting out its proposed grounds of challenge and seeking more information about the policy.

"Whether we sue depends on what the UK Government says, but if we do not sue we will share any surplus equally between the Magical Breakfast and Medical Aid for Palestinians," it said.Good Law Project said schools have legal duties not to "promote partisan political views" and duties to protect free expression.It called "vigorous" criticisms of Israel's "appalling actions" "necessary in a moral society," and strongly condemned the IHRA definition which it said prohibits criticism of Israel."So, students whose family members have been killed by Israel's destruction of large parts of Gaza will not be able to say Israel is a racist state or that its actions are reminiscent of the Shoah – the genocide carried out against Jews?," it added, drawing a parallel between Gaza and the Holocaust.Palestine Action appeal set to appear in Supreme CourtGood Law has previously spoken out in support of Palestine Action, which is also in the media this week ahead of its Supreme Court appeal case on November 4 and 5.The UK government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organization in July 2025, following an incident in June 2025 where activists broke into RAF Brize Norton and spray-painted two military aircraft.Under the proscription, belonging to, inviting support for, or expressing support for the group (such as holding a placard or sign) is a criminal offense carrying severe penalties.

The High Court initially ruled the ban disproportionate in February 2026, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in June 2026, ruling the proscription lawful. The group's co-founder secured permission for an appeal to the UK Supreme Court, with hearings scheduled for November 2026.Jewish Leadership Council, Community Security Trust set to argue against PAThe Jewish Leadership Council and Community Security Trust have been granted permission by the Supreme Court to jointly intervene in the appeal relating to PA proscription, with the two organizations set to argue “why the continued proscription of Palestine Action matters, not only for the Jewish community, but for society as a whole.”In their submission on Monday, the JLC and CST said the UK's Jewish community is "especially vulnerable to Palestine Action (PA)'s violent activities," noting that, prior to its proscription, PA's target list expanded to organizations within the Jewish community.

This included attacks on a number of Jewish charities and Jewish-owned businesses in predominantly Jewish areas.JLC and CST said the Court of Appeal "rightly concluded" that PA is a "violent organization, concerned in terrorism, with a wide range of targets, that its activities are often undertaken covertly with no suggestion of restraint or proportionality, and that at the point it was proscribed it had an escalating trajectory of seriousness and an expanding focus.

The submission argued that, because most British Jews and Jewish institutions have a connection with Israel, a campaign against institutions PA's activists consider to be 'complicit' with Israel is, in practice, a campaign that threatens the mainstream Jewish community. "If the proscription of PA was held to be disproportionate and quashed, this would cause serious prejudice to the Jewish community," the submission stressed.