The High Court of Australia delivered a significant ruling against the Federal Government, declaring the new regulations for monitoring released individuals from indefinite immigration detention unconstitutional. These regulations included requirements for electronic ankle bracelets and curfews, which the government argued were essential for community safety. The case was brought to the court by a Papua New Guinea citizen, who challenged the legality of being subjected to such monitoring upon his release.

In 2024, the government originally had its monitoring regime struck down as unconstitutional. In response, they attempted to introduce new measures that they believed aligned with constitutional standards. However, the High Court found that these new regulations still failed to meet the benchmarks required by the Australian Constitution, signaling a continued struggle for the government in controlling immigration policies while respecting individual rights.

This ruling could have broader implications for the government's approach to immigration detention and monitoring practices. It raises questions about the balance between community protection and individual civil liberties, particularly for those coming from vulnerable backgrounds or indefinitely detained. Legal experts suggest that this decision may encourage further challenges against similar restrictive measures in the future and necessitate a reevaluation of how immigration laws are applied in Australia.