The measures lowered the bar for what is considered “serious disruption” to community life, from “significant” and “prolonged” to “more than minor”.
They also allowed police officers to take into account “any relevant cumulative disruption” of repeated protests.
Liberty called the High Court ruling a “huge victory for democracy”.
Ministers had tried to introduce the same changes when the Public Order Bill went through parliament, but they were rejected by the Lords at the time by 254 votes to 240.
More from Politics
The step to restore the provisions by statutory instrument, which faces less scrutiny than primary legislation, was criticised at the time but passed last year.
‘Huge victory for democracy’
Advertisement
At a hearing in February, lawyers for Liberty asked the High Court to quash the “unlawful” provision.
And in a ruling on Tuesday, two judges ruled for the group, finding the Home Office acted outside of its powers by reducing the threshold and failed to carry out a fair consultation process.
Lord Justice Green and Mr Justice Kerr said: “As a matter of ordinary and natural language ‘more than minor’ is not within the scope of the word ‘serious’.”
Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, said after the judgment: “This ruling is a huge victory for democracy and sets down an important marker to show that the government cannot step outside of the law to do whatever it wants.
“We all have the right to speak out on the issues we believe in and it’s vital that the government respects that.
“These dangerous powers were rejected by parliament yet still sneaked through the back door with the clear intention of stopping protesters that the government did not personally agree with, and were so vaguely worded that it meant that the police were given almost unlimited powers to shut down any other protest too.
“This judgment sends a clear message that accountability matters and that those in power must make decisions that respect our rights.”
‘Extreme’ protest groups could be proscribed
The ruling comes ahead of a report by Lord Walney on political violence and disruption, which is due to be published later today.
Image: Palestine Action defaced a painting of former prime minister Lord Balfour in Cambridge on 8 March, 2024. Pic: Palestine Action
On Sunday he did not rule out a recommendation that organisations such as Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action be proscribed in a similar way to terrorist groups.
Speaking to Sky News, the crossbench peer said he was asked by ministers to examine “extremism at the far right, but also at the anti-democratic far left, and to look at whether there has been sufficient attention to the way in which far left organisations can seek to disrupt and undermine our country”.
He said that some organisations are using “criminal tactics” to “force the conversation towards the kind of change that they want rather than engaging in democratic channels”.
Asked specifically about Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action he said: “Both of those organisations are clearly breaking the law as a way of trying to force the conversation. And I think we should be less relaxed about that.”
Only a quarter of British adults think Sir Keir Starmer will win the next general election, as the party’s climbdown over welfare cuts affects its standing with the public.
A fresh poll by Ipsos, shared with Sky News, also found 63% do not feel confident the government is running the country competently, similar to levels scored by previous Conservative administrations under Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak in July 2022 and February 2023, respectively.
The survey of 1,080 adults aged 18-75 across Great Britain was conducted online between 27 and 30 June 2025, when Labour began making the first of its concessions, suggesting the party’s turmoil over its own benefits overhaul is partly to blame.
The prime minister was forced into an embarrassing climbdown on Tuesday night over his plans to slash welfare spending, after it became apparent he was in danger of losing the vote owing to a rebellion among his own MPs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:21
Govt makes last-minute concession on welfare bill
The bill that was put to MPs for a vote was so watered down that the most controversial element – to tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments (PIP) – was put on hold, pending a review into the assessment process by minister Stephen Timms that is due to report back in the autumn.
The government was forced into a U-turn after Labour MPs signalled publicly and privately that the previous concession made at the weekend to protect existing claimants from the new rules would not be enough.
More on Benefits
Related Topics:
While the bill passed its first parliamentary hurdle last night, with a majority of 75, 49 Labour MPs still voted against it – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.
It left MPs to vote on only one element of the original plan – the cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:21
Govt makes last-minute concession on welfare bill
An amendment brought by Labour MP Rachael Maskell, which aimed to prevent the bill progressing to the next stage, was defeated but 44 Labour MPs voted for it.
The incident has raised questions about Sir Keir’s authority just a year after the general election delivered him the first Labour landslide victory in decades.
And on Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was “not going anywhere” after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister’s questions sparked speculation about her political future.
The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.
Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: “Labour rows over welfare reform haven’t just harmed the public’s view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.
“The public is starting to doubt Labour’s ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn’t end up going the same way.”
Image: Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves (right) crying as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks. Pic: Commons/UK Parliament/PA
It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.
Her spokesperson says it was a personal matter that they will not be getting into.
More from Politics
Even Kemi Badenoch, not usually the most nimble PMQs performer, singled her out. “She looks absolutely miserable,” she said.
Anyone wondering if Kemi Badenoch can kick a dog when it’s down has their answer today.
The Tory leader asked the PM if he could guarantee his chancellor’s future: he could not. “She has delivered, and we are grateful for it,” Sir Keir said, almost sounding like he was speaking in the past tense.
Image: Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset behind Keir Starmer at PMQs. Pic PA
It is important to say: Rachel Reeves’s face during one PMQs session is not enough to tell us everything, or even anything, we need to know.
But given the government has just faced its most bruising week yet, it was hard not to speculate. The prime minister’s spokesperson has said since PMQs that the chancellor has not offered her resignation and is not going anywhere.
But Rachel Reeves has surely seen an omen of the impossible decisions ahead.
How will she plug the estimated £5.5bn hole left by the welfare climbdown in the nation’s finances? Will she need to tweak her iron clad fiscal rules? Will she come back for more tax rises? What message does all of this send to the markets?
If a picture tells us a thousand words, Rachel Reeves’s face will surely be blazoned on the front pages tomorrow as a warning that no U-turn goes unpunished.