[3][4] Banerji was a public servant at the Australian Human Rights Commission, which later became part of the then-named Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIC).

After a series of investigations the identity of the Twitter user was discovered and in October 2012 a delegate of the departmental secretary determined that Banerji had breached the APS Code of Conduct and recommended the sanction of termination of employment.

The Department rejected this claim on the basis that the termination was a reasonable administrative action (an exclusion provided by s5A(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).

Additionally, Banerji argued that the implied freedom was a mandatory consideration in the exercise of delegate's discretion to terminate her employment under s15 of the Act; and that their failure to consider it meant the decision was in jurisdictional error.

By majority, Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ rejected Banerji's argument that the impugned provisions could not extent to 'anonymous' communications.

(per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle JJ)In making their finding that the provisions did not create an unjustified burden on the implied freedom, the majority applied the legal test from Lange v ABC,[9] as it was stated in Clubb v Edwards,[10] earlier in 2019.

[4] Kieran Pender of The Canberra Times described the decision as 'no surprise', writing that;"Even in the United States, that bastion of free speech with its robust First Amendment, the ability of government employees to engage in political debate is limited.