Judicial review launched against NHS for adopting ‘weaponised’ anti-Semitism definition

A British civil liberties organisation has initiated a judicial review against the National Health Service (NHS) England for its formal adoption of the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti‑Semitism, arguing that the policy unlawfully curtails freedom of expression and shields certain political viewpoints from legitimate criticism.

Right to Protest Limited filed its claim at the High Court on 19 January 2026, challenging NHS England’s decision to embed the IHRA definition into its institutional anti‑harassment framework without public consultation or consideration of free speech impacts. The organisation contends that the definition has been weaponised to suppress lawful political debate, contravening Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The IHRA definition, widely adopted by governments and institutions in mainly western states, is officially described as a non‑legally binding “working definition” intended to help identify anti-Semitic conduct. However, it has been highly controversial and widely critiqued by civil liberties advocates, academics, and even its original drafter.

Kenneth Stern, the American attorney and scholar who took the lead in drafting the IHRA definition in 2005, has repeatedly warned that the framework is being misused. Warning that the IHRA has been “weaponised”, Stern stated that the definition was originally designed simply to help European data‑collectors compare reports of anti‑Jewish hostility across borders and time, not to serve as a policy enforcement tool or legal instrument.

Stern argued that conflating criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy with anti-Semitism risks chilling legitimate free speech and undermining the broader fight against genuine anti‑Jewish hatred. He offered a hypothetical: if Black Lives Matter were to urge the adoption of a definition of racism that included opposition to affirmative action, this would transform a debate about racism into a debate about free speech—illustrating how definitions can be misused for political ends.

Read: Controversial ‘anti-Semitism code’ being ‘weaponised’ by pro-Israel groups, warns drafter

Critics point out that seven of the eleven examples attached to the IHRA definition refer specifically to Israel, arguing that this conflates legitimate criticism of the Israeli state with anti-Semitism and risks suppressing political debate and academic freedom.

Right to Protest’s legal challenge asserts that NHS England’s adoption of the IHRA definition without appropriate safeguards poses a chilling effect on clinicians, academics, staff and patients who may fear disciplinary or reputational consequences for expressing lawful political views. The claim also highlights the absence of risk assessments or public consultation.

“At the heart of this case is a defence of free expression — the right to speak, to think, to debate, and to challenge power without fear of silencing,” said a spokesperson for Right to Protest Limited. “The NHS must be a place grounded in clinical evidence, ethical debate, and human dignity — not political policing.”

The judicial review could have implications beyond the NHS, as other public bodies in the UK have also adopted the IHRA definition without scrutiny.

To support the legal challenge, Right to Protest has launched a CrowdJustice fundraising campaign to help cover legal costs and ensure robust representation in court. The group is calling on healthcare professionals, free speech advocates, and members of the public to contribute. The campaign underscores what is at stake: not only the right to speak freely about political issues, but also the ability of public institutions to operate without political interference.