The Home Office is facing a high court lawsuit brought by the campaign group the3million, which alleges that the government breached the Brexit withdrawal agreement by stripping almost 1,500 EU citizens of their full rights to live in the UK without proper procedural safeguards, including the right to appeal and a proportionality assessment.
The legal challenge, filed on Friday, follows cases in which EU citizens who had been granted pre-settled status to remain after Brexit were later informed those decisions were an “error”. The statement of claim asserts that the Home Office’s removal of rights lacked the protections required under the withdrawal agreement, such as an appeal and an evaluation of whether removing rights was proportionate given the individuals had built their lives in the UK based on the original grant.
Among those affected is a 33-year-old Brazilian Italian engineer who has lived in London since 2018. He was originally told he should not have settled status and that his Brazilian wife could not stay, a decision that was reversed in recent weeks after objections. Another EU citizen, an NHS worker studying for a PhD in dentistry, has said the notification had “turned her life upside down”.
In October 2026, the Home Office accepted that where a person provides evidence of Italian citizenship obtained through jure sanguinis (direct descent from an Italian relative), alongside proof of that citizenship, it would now recognise them as Italian from birth. Previously, it told several Brazilian Italians their status was granted in error because they had not presented an Italian passport at the time, only stating they were Italian citizens. Many said they could not obtain a passport because public institutions were in lockdown during the pandemic.
The3million argues the policy denies safeguards the withdrawal agreement guarantees. Monique Hawkins, acting CEO of the group, said: “The Home Office is putting the cart before the horse. It denies people the safeguards the withdrawal agreement guarantees – a fair assessment and a right of appeal – because it says they are ‘clearly’ not covered by the agreement. That’s like saying someone doesn’t need a trial because they’re ‘clearly’ guilty.” She noted the Home Office’s reversal on jure sanguinis Italian nationals showed it could change policy when errors were exposed.
The high court papers stated: “This is a simple matter of providing proper due process. Despite our advocacy efforts since early 2025, the Home Office refused to change course, so we have no option but to challenge the policy in court.” The group seeks a declaration that the policy is unlawful under the withdrawal agreement and/or common law, and an order to remove the offending parts of the policy.
Lawyers also argue that the UK’s deliberate generosity under the EU settlement scheme, which minimised the evidence required from applicants, compounded the current policy. Hawkins said grants were made through processes involving evidential flexibility and, in some cases, discretionary decision-making, leaving many status holders unable to know why they were granted status, and with no means of finding out.
This is not the first legal challenge over the withdrawal agreement’s implementation. In 2022, the Independent Monitoring Authority, backed by the3million, took the Home Office to court, accusing it of putting EU citizens at risk of losing their rights to work or rent a home by forcing them to reapply once their pre-settled status expired. The high court ruled in the IMA’s favour, finding the conditions unlawful.
A Home Office spokesperson said they could not comment as proceedings were ongoing.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The case tests whether the UK is honouring the Brexit withdrawal agreement’s protections for EU citizens, with potential implications for thousands of people whose status may be revoked.
- It highlights a pattern of legal disputes over the EU settlement scheme, which could affect public trust in the system and the government’s handling of post-Brexit rights.
- The outcome may set a precedent for how the Home Office must handle cases where previous grants were allegedly erroneous, including requirements for appeals and proportionality reviews.
Background
The Brexit withdrawal agreement, signed in 2020, guaranteed certain rights for EU citizens living in the UK before the transition period ended, including protections against arbitrary removal of settled or pre-settled status. The EU settlement scheme was set up to process applications, with a generous approach to evidence. The Home Office has previously faced legal challenges over its implementation; in 2022, the high court ruled that requiring pre-settled status holders to reapply was unlawful.
Key Perspectives
the3million: Argues the Home Office’s “grant in error” policy breaches the withdrawal agreement by denying due process, including the right to appeal and a proportionality assessment, and that the policy is unlawful under common law.
Home Office: Said it could not comment as proceedings are ongoing.
What to Watch
- The high court’s ruling on whether the policy breaches the withdrawal agreement, which could force the Home Office to change how it handles similar cases.
- Whether the Home Office expands its policy reversal on jure sanguinis Italian nationals to other groups, such as Brazilian Portuguese citizens.
- Potential further legal challenges from affected individuals seeking compensation or reinstatement of rights.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedThe Home Office is being sued over stripping EU citizens’ rights, with an alleged breach of the Brexit withdrawal agreement.World news | The Guardian: “The Home Office is being sued for alleged breach of the Brexit withdrawal agreement after stripping almost 1,500 EU citizens of their full rights to live in the UK.”
- SupportedAlmost 1,500 EU citizens had their full rights to live in the UK stripped.World news | The Guardian: “after stripping almost 1,500 EU citizens of their full rights to live in the UK.”
- SupportedThe3million lodged papers at the High Court on Friday.World news | The Guardian: “Campaign group the3million lodged papers at the high court on Friday”
- SupportedSeveral EU citizens with pre-settled status were told that the decisions granting it were an “error”.World news | The Guardian: “after several cases emerged of EU citizens who were granted pre-settled status to remain in the country after Brexit but were told recently those decisions were an “error”.”
- SupportedThe statement of claim says the Home Office removed rights without required procedural protections, including an appeal and a proportionality assessment.World news | The Guardian: “According to the statement of claim, the Home Office decision to remove all or some rights from citizens granted pre-settled status was made without “procedural protections” required under the Brexit withdrawal agreement (WA). These protections include a right of an appeal and an assessment of “proportionality””
- SupportedMonique Hawkins said: “The Home Office is putting the cart before the horse. It denies people the safeguards the withdrawal agreement guarantees – a fair assessment and a right of appeal – because it says they are ‘clearly’ not covered by the agreement. That’s like saying someone doesn’t need a trial because they’re ‘clearly’ guilty.”World news | The Guardian: “Monique Hawkins, acting CEO of the3million, said: “The Home Office is putting the cart before the horse. It denies people the safeguards the withdrawal agreement guarantees – a fair assessment and a right of appeal – because it says they are ‘clearly’ not covered by the agreement. That’s like saying someone doesn’t need a trial because they’re ‘clearly’ guilty.””
- SupportedThe high court papers state: “This is a simple matter of providing proper due process. Despite our advocacy efforts since early 2025, the Home Office refused to change course, so we have no option but to challenge the policy in court.”World news | The Guardian: “The high court papers said: “This is a simple matter of providing proper due process. Despite our advocacy efforts since early 2025, the Home Office refused to change course, so we have no option but to challenge the policy in court.””
- SupportedOne person affected is a 33-year-old Brazilian Italian engineer who has been in London since 2018.World news | The Guardian: “Among the people affected by the Home Office policy was a 33-year-old Brazilian Italian engineer who has been in London since 2018.”
- SupportedAn NHS worker studying for a PhD in dentistry said the Home Office notification had “turned her life upside down”.World news | The Guardian: “Another EU citizen who raised her case with the3million is a woman working in the NHS and studying for a PhD in dentistry. She has said the Home Office’s notification had “turned her life upside down” .”
- SupportedIn October 2026, the Home Office accepted that evidence of Italian citizenship obtained through jure sanguinis would lead it to recognise the person as Italian from birth.World news | The Guardian: “In October 2026, the Home Office accepted that where a person provides evidence of their Italian citizenship, together with evidence that this was obtained through jure sanguinis , they would now accept that this person was an Italian from birth.”
- SupportedThe3million seeks a declaration that the policy is unlawful under the withdrawal agreement and/or common law, and an order to remove the offending parts of the policy.World news | The Guardian: “The campaign group is asking the court to declare that the “grant in error policy is unlawful, by breach of the WA and/or common law” and make whatever order is necessary to “excise the offending parts of the published policy””
- SupportedIn 2022, the High Court ruled in the Independent Monitoring Authority’s favour, finding the conditions imposed by the Home Office unlawful.World news | The Guardian: “In 2022 it was taken to court by the statutory watchdog set up to ensure the Home Office implemented the withdrawal agreement properly. The Independent Monitoring Authority, backed by the3million, accused the Home Office of putting EU citizens at risk of losing their rights to work or rent a home by forcing them to reapply for settled status once their pre-settled status expired. High court judges ruled in the IMA’s favour concluding the conditions imposed by the Home Office were unlawful.”