Sally Rooney has warned that her future books may never be published in Britain, and that her existing novels could be pulled from UK shelves, because of the government’s decision to ban the activist group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.

In a witness statement submitted to the High Court, the Irish novelist said the proscription has created such legal uncertainty around her pledge to donate royalties to Palestine Action that UK publishers and broadcasters may be unable to pay her at all. She described the potential removal of her work from the British market as “a truly extreme incursion by the state into the realm of artistic expression”.

Rooney’s intervention comes as Palestine Action co‑founder Huda Ammori mounts a judicial review of the July 2025 decision to outlaw the group under the Terrorism Act 2000. The case is the first major legal test of the Labour government’s move to treat a domestic protest network focused on damage to property as a terrorist organisation, and has rapidly become a flashpoint in a broader argument over free speech, protest and cultural life in the UK.

In August this year Rooney publicly committed to donate royalties from her novels and from television adaptations of Normal People and Conversations with Friends to support Palestine Action, which targets companies it accuses of enabling Israel’s military operations. She told the court that shortly after the group was proscribed, the producer of the BBC dramas informed her they had been advised they could not send her money if it might be passed on to a banned organisation, for fear of committing an offence of funding terrorism.

Since then, she said, it has become “unclear” whether any British company can safely pay her, including her UK publisher Faber & Faber and other media firms. As long as the ban remains in place, she believes it is “almost certain” she cannot publish or produce new work in the UK on a normal commercial basis, because any royalties would be tainted by her open intention to use them in support of Palestine Action.

Rooney’s contracts with Faber are structured around royalty payments. If those cannot legally be made, she argues she may have grounds to terminate the agreements and insist that her existing titles be withdrawn from sale in Britain, even while remaining available elsewhere. Her statement envisages a scenario in which a future novel could be published “all over the world and in dozens of languages”, but still not appear in British bookshops because no UK company would be permitted to pay her.

She told the court that her income has already been “enormously restricted” and that she has cancelled planned trips to Britain, including literary events, over concerns about being arrested if she repeated her support for Palestine Action on UK soil. In a separate interview she has said that if backing the group means she is considered “a ‘supporter of terror’ under UK law, so be it”, and has defended its tactics as part of a “long and proud tradition of civil disobedience”.

Rooney, 34, is one of the most commercially successful literary novelists of her generation. Normal People and Conversations with Friends became best‑selling books and widely watched television dramas, and her later novels Beautiful World, Where Are You and Intermezzo have consolidated her international profile. She has long been outspoken on Palestine; in 2021 she declined to sell Hebrew‑language rights for one of her books to an Israeli publisher, citing concerns about apartheid.

The government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action followed a sharp escalation in the group’s campaign. Founded in 2020 by Ammori and fellow activist Richard Barnard, the network has focused on disruptive direct action against British sites linked to Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems and other arms manufacturers. Its supporters have repeatedly occupied and defaced offices and factories, daubing buildings in red paint and causing significant damage.

In June this year activists broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and vandalised two Airbus A330 refuelling aircraft, in an attack that officials say caused about £7m worth of damage. Ministers cited that raid, alongside a pattern of sabotage against industrial targets, when they moved to outlaw the organisation.

On 2 July MPs voted by 385 to 26 to add Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act. The order, signed by the home secretary Yvette Cooper, came into force on 5 July across the UK. It places the group on the same legal footing as organisations such as al‑Qaeda and Islamic State in terms of criminal liability for membership and support.

Under the Terrorism Act, it is a criminal offence to belong to a proscribed organisation, to invite support for it, to manage its money or property, or to make funds available knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that they may be used for terrorism. Publicly displaying clothing or symbols in a way that reasonably suggests support is also an offence. The maximum penalty for membership or inviting support is 14 years in prison.

In practice, lawyers say, that framework makes any financial relationship that might benefit Palestine Action risky, even indirectly. If Rooney receives money in Britain with the stated aim of passing it on to the group or to its campaigns, both she and the payer could be exposed to prosecution. It is this “grey zone” that has led programme‑makers and publishers to question whether they can lawfully deal with her while she maintains her pledge.

The High Court challenge, brought in Ammori’s name, argues that proscription is an unprecedented and disproportionate interference with rights to freedom of thought, expression and assembly, protected by the European convention on human rights. Her legal team contends that Palestine Action’s activities fall within a longstanding British tradition of non‑violent direct action, drawing parallels with suffragette attacks on property in the early 20th century. One barrister suggested that under the current definition of terrorism the suffragettes themselves might now be labelled terrorists.

Police intelligence assessments disclosed in the case, according to reports, acknowledge that violence against people has been rare and largely incidental to Palestine Action’s operations, rather than encouraged as a matter of policy. Supporters insist that activists focus on buildings, vehicles and infrastructure, targeting what they view as “complicity” in Israel’s military actions in Gaza and the occupied territories.

Since the ban came into force, however, more than 2,000 people have been arrested for alleged support for Palestine Action, including large numbers detained at sit‑ins and vigils in Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square and more than 100 outside the High Court itself during the current hearing. Civil liberties groups say this wave of arrests, many of them for displaying flags or badges or chanting slogans, shows how quickly proscription can expand beyond the core organisers of a group to encompass much wider circles of sympathisers.

Home Office lawyers reject the claim that the decision is unlawful. In written submissions, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the department, has argued that Parliament is entitled to define terrorism to include serious damage to property where it is carried out for political or ideological ends and where there is a willingness to risk injury and significant disruption. He says proscription is a legitimate, preventive tool designed to deprive such groups of the “oxygen” of publicity and financial support, and to degrade their ability to recruit and radicalise.

Ministers have emphasised that the ban is not aimed at people who simply express support for the Palestinian cause. Introducing the order to MPs, the Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said Palestine Action’s strategy went beyond lawful protest and sought to cause “millions of pounds of damage to national security infrastructure”. He said proscription would strip away any “veil of legitimacy” and allow police and prosecutors to respond robustly.

At the same time, some current and former security officials have expressed concern that the measure risks drawing a wide circle of people into terrorism‑related processes. Internal briefings reported by one newspaper suggested that Home Office staff involved in the Prevent counter‑radicalisation scheme expect an increase in referrals linked to Palestine Action, particularly from teachers and health workers unsure where the line now lies between political expression and criminal support.

Prevent referrals were already up 27% year on year to March 2025, reaching record levels. David Anderson KC, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has warned publicly that using proscription against groups whose focus is on property damage, rather than systematic violence against people, risks blurring the boundary between terrorism and disruptive protest.

That boundary is also at the heart of the intervention by Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on counter‑terrorism and human rights, who has joined the High Court case. He has argued that the UK’s approach misapplies internationally accepted definitions of terrorism and imposes unduly broad restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly.

For the Labour government, the case highlights the political pressures around Gaza‑related activism and the party’s stance on public order. Critics on the left and in parts of the arts world see the Palestine Action ban as a symbol of a hard‑line approach that could alienate core supporters. Ministers insist they are targeting criminality, not opinions.

Rooney’s situation crystallises those tensions for the cultural sector. Her assessment that it may be impossible to publish new work in Britain without exposing partners to terrorism‑law risk has raised questions for other writers, performers and institutions about how far they can engage with proscribed‑linked causes. Publishers, broadcasters and festivals are understood to be seeking legal advice on where they stand when commissioning or hosting outspoken supporters of Palestine Action.

The High Court hearing is due to conclude on 2 December, with judgment to follow at a later date. If Ammori succeeds, the proscription could be quashed and Palestine Action removed from the banned list, easing the legal jeopardy facing its supporters and, potentially, clearing a path for Rooney’s books to remain on British shelves. If the government wins, the ruling is likely to entrench a far‑reaching precedent on the use of terrorism powers against domestic protest movements — and could leave one of the English‑speaking world’s most prominent novelists effectively unpublished in the UK by choice, for as long as she continues to back a group the law now brands terrorist.