Reported by 1 source

The short version

  • The Home Office is facing a high court lawsuit after notifying approximately 1,500 EU citizens that their pre-settled status was granted in error.
  • Critics argue the policy breaches the Brexit withdrawal agreement by denying affected individuals due process, including rights to appeal and proportionality assessments.
  • The dispute highlights tensions over evidential standards, particularly regarding Italian citizenship derived through descent rather than immediate passport presentation.

A significant legal confrontation has emerged between the UK Home Office and a prominent campaign group regarding the revocation of residency rights for nearly 1,500 European Union citizens. The3million, an organization advocating for EU nationals in Britain, filed papers at the High Court alleging that the government’s recent actions constitute a breach of the Brexit withdrawal agreement. The core of the dispute centers on notifications sent to individuals who had previously been granted pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, informing them that these grants were made in error and thus invalidating their right to remain.

The legal challenge asserts that the Home Office failed to adhere to procedural protections required by international agreement. Specifically, the claim argues that affected citizens were denied the opportunity for a fair assessment of proportionality and the right to appeal before their rights were stripped. Lawyers representing the campaign group contend that removing status without these safeguards ignores the fact that many individuals built their lives in the UK based on the government’s original decisions. This lack of due process is described as fundamentally unfair, comparing it to denying a trial because guilt is assumed rather than proven.

News Journal

A substantial portion of the affected population consists of Brazilian nationals with Italian heritage. Under Italian law, citizenship can be passed down through direct and unbroken lineage, known as jure sanguinis. However, the Home Office previously rejected applications from these individuals because they did not present an Italian passport at the time of their initial application, instead relying on other evidence of citizenship. This stance created a precarious situation for many who had lived in the UK for years, believing their status was secure based on the information provided during the application process.

The controversy intensified in October 2026 when the Home Office acknowledged that it would accept evidence of Italian citizenship obtained through jure sanguinis, effectively reversing its previous position. This policy shift admitted that earlier rejections or errors were based on overly rigid evidential requirements. Despite this correction for future cases, the government continued to pursue the removal of rights from those already granted status under the old rules, prompting the current litigation. The campaign group argues that this inconsistency demonstrates the arbitrary nature of the enforcement strategy.

Individual stories highlight the human impact of these administrative decisions. One case involves a 33-year-old engineer who has resided in London since 2018. He was initially told he could not obtain settled status, though he was allowed to stay while his Brazilian wife faced potential exclusion. This decision was later reversed after objections were raised, illustrating the volatility of the current system. Another affected individual is an NHS worker pursuing a PhD in dentistry, who reported that the notification of her status being an error caused significant personal and professional disruption.

Legal experts point out that the UK’s implementation of the EU Settlement Scheme was deliberately more generous than the minimum requirements set by the withdrawal agreement. This generosity included flexible evidential standards and discretionary decision-making by caseworkers. Consequently, many status holders cannot determine whether their approval was based on strict compliance with the agreement, domestic law provisions, or administrative discretion. The Home Office’s current policy of retroactively invalidating these grants creates uncertainty for thousands who relied on the government’s initial assessment.

This is not the first instance of judicial intervention regarding the Home Office’s handling of post-Brexit immigration rules. In 2022, the Independent Monitoring Authority, supported by the3million, successfully challenged the government in court over requirements that forced EU citizens to reapply for settled status upon expiration of their pre-settled status. The High Court ruled those conditions unlawful, establishing a precedent that the government must adhere to the spirit and letter of the withdrawal agreement. The current lawsuit seeks similar relief, asking the court to declare the grant-in-error policy unlawful and remove offending parts from published guidance.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement in the UK. If the court rules in favor of the3million, it may require the Home Office to reinstate rights for those affected and implement stricter procedural safeguards for future revocations. Conversely, a ruling against the campaign group could embolden the government to pursue more aggressive retroactive corrections of past decisions. As the legal battle proceeds, thousands of residents remain in limbo, awaiting clarity on their right to live and work in the country they have called home.

Sources behind this briefing

Go to the original reporting