(CN) — An 11th Circuit panel in Miami heard arguments Friday over a lawsuit challenging a Florida law that bans many immigrants from China and other foreign countries from purchasing homes in vast portions of the state.
Four Chinese immigrants who live, work, study and raise families in Florida — but are prohibited under Senate Bill 264 from buying a house — brought the suit. Multi-Choice Realty, a local real estate firm that says the law harms its business, is also a plaintiff.
U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Luck expressed concerns over whether each of the plaintiffs' individual standing applies to each of the law's provisions about purchasing property, selling property and an affidavit registration for those who already own property.
The Donald Trump appointee said that because each of the provisions have different requirements that may not affect all of the plaintiffs, the court might not be able to grant a full injunction against the entire law.
Luck noted that some of the plaintiffs who have shown intent to stay permanently in the U.S., as well as the real estate company, could be harmed by the restriction on purchasing. But he added that all of the plaintiffs "meet the affidavit requirement to some extent."
Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis signed SB 264 into law in 2023, restricting land purchases by immigrants from "foreign countries of concern," including China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Syria, on or within 10 miles of any military installation or critical infrastructure facility in the state.
The law specifically restricts people from China who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents from owning any real property in Florida, regardless of location. The sole exception is that people with a valid non-tourist visa or who have been granted asylum can buy one residential property, but only if it is less than 2 acres and not within 5 miles of a military installation.
U.S. Circuit Judge Charles Wilson questioned the state's attorney on how many square miles of land the law leaves available under the law, since there are more than 20 military bases in Florida — many of them within 5 miles of city centers like Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville, Pensacola, Panama City, and Key West. There are many other sites in the state that may also qualify as “military installations.”
"If I'm a Realtor and my client has Asian features, are they required to determine if that person is a domicile of China? How does that work out conceptually?" Wilson asked attorney Nathan Andrew Forrester, from the Florida Attorney General's Office.
Forrester said that everyone, regardless of their ethnicity, would have to sign an affidavit. But Wilson wondered whether a real estate agent could face criminal liability if a false affidavit were submitted.
Forrester said that remains undetermined. He added that the state's primary concern is the manipulation of Chinese citizens living in Florida by the Chinese government.
Any person living in Florida that is “domiciled” in China must register their existing property with the state or face civil penalty and forfeiture consequences for failure to comply. Under the law, Chinese immigrants face up to five years in prison for trying to buy a home — the seller faces up to one year — as well as thousands of dollars in fines.
Attorney Ashley Gorski from the American Civil Liberties Union argued that it is the president's discretion to mitigate foreign policy transactions. A state singling out certain countries as threats creates an obstacle that undermines the objectives of Congress, she added.
Wilson, a Bill Clinton appointee, also appeared concerned over whether the law conflicts with the president's constitutional duty to govern U.S. foreign policy and national security.
The U.S. government filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that the law violates the Fair Housing Act and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
As Luck noted, the 11th Circuit panel will have a significant say in whether Terrace v. Thompson, a century-old Supreme Court case, is still considered "good law."
The lower court that denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction of the new law largely relied on the precedent, which held “each state, in the absence of any treaty provision to the contrary, has power to deny to aliens the right to own land within its borders.”
The plaintiffs — along with a separate 11th Circuit panel that previously barred enforcement of the law against two of the Chinese citizens pending appeal — said that more recent precedent set by the Supreme Court and other courts across the country have called into question the 1923 case's validity.
Fellow Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa rounded out the three-judge circuit panel but did not comment on either party's argument. The judges did not signal when they intend to issue a ruling.
Follow @Megwiththenews
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
