A U.S. federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Florida’s 2023 law barring Chinese citizens from buying real estate in the state, rejecting arguments that the measure is discriminatory and conflicts with federal law.
The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, said the four Chinese citizens challenging the law lacked legal standing because the statute applies only to individuals “domiciled” in China. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have lived in Florida for several years.
The ruling lifts a prior injunction that had prevented enforcement of the law pending appeal.
Key takeaways
• The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2–1 to allow Florida to enforce its 2023 law restricting land purchases by Chinese citizens.
• The court found plaintiffs lacked standing and rejected claims the law conflicts with federal statutes or discriminates based on race.
• The decision could encourage similar legislation in other U.S. states.
• The ACLU criticized the ruling, calling it a setback for immigrant rights.
Background on the law
The law, signed by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis in 2023, prohibits individuals who are domiciled in China—and who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents—from purchasing real estate or agricultural land in Florida. Exceptions allow certain visa holders and asylum recipients to acquire a single residential property up to two acres in size, provided it is at least five miles (eight kilometers) from any military installation.
At the time of its passage, DeSantis said the measure was intended to limit the influence of the Chinese Communist Party and protect U.S. national and food security interests.
Court’s reasoning
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Robert Luck said the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate direct injury and that the law’s enactment was motivated by national, individual, land, and food security concerns. Judge Barbara Lagoa joined Luck’s opinion; both were appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump and previously served on the Florida Supreme Court.
In dissent, Circuit Judge Charles Wilson, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, argued that regulation of foreign investment is a quintessentially federal arena, contending that Florida’s law is preempted by federal authority.
Broader implications
The decision could embolden lawmakers in other states to adopt similar alien land restrictions, which were once common in the early 20th century but largely repealed decades ago. Legislatures in more than 30 states have introduced or passed measures limiting foreign ownership of property.
The Florida Attorney General’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
ACLU attorney Ashley Gorski called the ruling disappointing, saying the organization will continue to fight laws like these that blatantly target immigrants based on their national origin and ethnicity.
Policy and political context
The ruling aligns with broader state-level efforts by Republican lawmakers to restrict foreign—particularly Chinese—investment in land near critical infrastructure and military sites. Supporters frame such laws as national security measures, while critics argue they revive discriminatory practices under a modern guise.
With the appellate decision in place, Florida can now begin enforcing the restrictions while further legal challenges remain possible.
