Tory peers have warned Suella Braverman they will be “awkward b******s” as they seek to scupper her controversial immigration legislation.
Ministers face a bruising battle with their own side in the Lords as they attempt to push through the controversial Illegal Migration Bill.
The draconian legislation faces votes in the Commons on Wednesday before it is expected to move to the Lords.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) today warned the bill risks breaching international obligations to protect human rights and exposing people to serious harm.
A Tory peer who is leading the rebellion in the Lords said: “We are prepared to go to the wall to fight this. We can be awkward b******s when we want to be.
"This legislation was not in the manifesto so we are quite within our rights to try to stop it.”
Under the plans, which have provoked outrage, vital protection will be withdrawn for victims of human trafficking who arrive by small boat, while pregnant women and children can be detained and deported.
In a scathing assessment, the EHRC warned the bill may not be legal.
It said it is "seriously concerned" that the bill could breach international legal obligations.
The EHRC added: "Provisions providing for the detention of children and pregnant women and removing protections for victims of trafficking and modern slavery are particularly worrying.
"Effective, rights-compliant action is needed to ensure that more lives are not lost on dangerous Channel crossings."
It called on the Government to bring forward measures to increase safe routes for those seeking asylum in the UK.
It comes as campaigners say High Court judges showed "excessive deference" to the Home Office's case for deporting refugees to Rwanda.
A Court of Appeal hearing was told today that material provided by the Rwandan government "lacked credibility".
Charity Asylum Action and several asylum seekers have challenged a High Court ruling from December that the scheme - announced by former Home Secretary Priti Patel more than a year ago - is legal.
Raza Husain KC, representing six asylum seekers, told the court: "By adopting this approach, the court failed to scrutinise the Home Office's view in the manner required."
But Lord Pannick KC, arguing for the Home Office, said in written submissions that the Rwandan government has "indicated a clear willingness to co-operate with international monitoring mechanisms".
