Friday, May 17, 2024

Federal judge denies request to block law limiting Chinese land ownership in Florida


A Florida federal judge has denied a request by four Chinese citizens and a real estate brokerage to block implementation of a new state law that bans certain Chinese citizens from purchasing property in Florida.

Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida wrote in his order on Thursday that because the ban is based on citizenship and not race or national origin, it likely does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling denied the plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief pending resolution of their underlying claims against the law.

- Advertisement -

The law (SB 264), which went into effect on July 1, restricts individuals who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents and whose “domicile” is in China or six other “foreign countries of concern” from owning or purchasing property near military installations and “critical” infrastructure such as airports and power plants.

There is a narrow exception for people with non-tourist visas or who have been granted asylum. They can purchase one residential property under two acres that is not within five miles of any military installation.

The law imposes additional restrictions that apply only to foreign principals domiciled in China.

- Advertisement -

After Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the measure into law, the ACLU of Florida and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a lawsuit in coordination with the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance on behalf of the Chinese citizens and brokerage.

They contended the law would codify and expand housing discrimination against people of Asian descent in violation both of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They followed up with an emergency motion contending that the plaintiffs would be forced to cancel purchases of new homes, register their existing properties with the state or face of severe penalties, and face the loss of significant business.

Judge Winsor, who was appointed by Republican President Donald Trump in 2018, denied that emergency motion in June, and on Thursday issued a 51-page ruling denying the request for a preliminary injunction.

- Advertisement -

‘Disheartening’

Ashley Gorski, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a written statement that “while today’s decision is disheartening, our clients will continue to fight for their rights to equality and fairness on appeal. Florida’s law legitimizes and expands housing discrimination, in violation of both the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act.”

“Our community will continue to fight against Florida’s unjust and racist law,” added Bethany Li, legal director at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. “These types of laws use false stereotypes about Asian Americans as perpetual foreigners and have repeatedly harmed our community — from the Chinese Exclusion Act, to the Japanese Americans’ incarceration during World War II, and the surveillance of South Asians in the post 9-11 period.”

Judge Winsor wrote in his order that the plaintiffs had not shown a substantial likelihood of success for their equal-protection claim. “The law here does not treat aliens differently based on their country of foreign citizenship. Instead, the law applies to any noncitizen domiciled in one of the specified countries (emphasis in the original).”

Winsor wrote that he was bound by Terrace v. Thompson, a 1923 U.S. Supreme Court precedent in which the high court held “that the Fourteenth Amendment did not divest states of the power to deny to aliens the right to own land within [their] borders.’” He added that, “[b]ecause the Terrace Cases are on-point Supreme Court precedent, they bind this court.”

The judge acknowledged that the plaintiffs “and others” have argued that the Supreme Court would not decide the Terrace cases today the way it did in 1923. “And perhaps they are right. But it is up to the United States Supreme Court to decide whether to overturn its own precedents. Unless or until it does, lower courts must follow those precedents.”

This article originally appeared in florida phoenix

More articles

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

Latest article