Chief Justice Stephen Gageler delivered a brief judgment denying the injunction, reinforcing the government’s hate-group designation.

Despite the setback, Sewell has built a sizable fundraising war chest and secured a prominent barrister, signaling a determined legal push to challenge the laws and pursue political activity.

Court documents show the party registered as an incorporated association in Victoria and aims to contest federal elections by gaining eligible party status.

The Australian Electoral Commission has deemed the party’s registration invalid until identities of at least 1,500 members are disclosed for verification, a step the group is resisting to avoid doxxing members.

A High Court judge dismissed White Australia’s bid for an injunction to overturn its designation as a prohibited hate group under Australia’s post-Bondi hate-law regime, effectively sustaining the listing.

The group, also known as the National Socialist Network, sought to pause its hate-group designation and to register as a political party, with hearings scheduled for June and September on related challenges.

Under electoral law, the group would need roughly 1,500 to 1,650 members with verified contact details to register as a party, with membership data typically required for approval.

The group sought injunctions to delay the listing and to challenge the law’s validity later in the year, arguing the law burdens political communication and constitutional rights.

The group argues the ban law burdens freedom of political communication and calls the legislation a “doorway to tyranny,” listing Thomas Sewell as the party’s representative of its 1,778 members.

Led by Sewell, the group questions the government’s power to designate it as a prohibited hate group and contends the law infringes political freedoms.

Sewell and the party argue that the party-registration process hinges on the legality of the hate-group designation, with efforts to move proceedings to federal court to accelerate judgments.

The sequence of actions spans ASIO-led processes, Attorney-General decisions, and parliamentary consultation, culminating in the High Court ruling.