A divided U.S. appeals court on Friday heard arguments on whether to block a Florida law that prohibits Chinese citizens from owning homes or land in the state, a measure defended by Republican state officials as crucial to counteracting the influence of the Chinese Communist Party.
A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Miami listened to arguments presented by a group of Chinese nationals seeking to halt the 2023 law pending the resolution of their lawsuit, asserting that Florida’s ban is unconstitutional and preempted by federal law.
In February, the 11th Circuit temporarily halted enforcement of the law against four plaintiffs while their appeal proceeded.
This came after a ruling in August by U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor in Tallahassee, Florida, which favored the state.
Winsor determined that the law doesn’t conflict with federal laws and, because it’s based on citizenship rather than race or national origin, likely doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution.
During Friday’s arguments, U.S. Circuit Judge Charles Wilson disagreed with Winsor’s interpretation that federal law only preempts state regulations concerning “foreign affairs” rather than national security, which is the focus of the Florida law.
Wilson, appointed by Democratic former President Bill Clinton, emphasized that national security falls squarely within the president’s purview.
President’s powers
The federal law in question empowers the president, with input from a cabinet committee, to block real estate transactions involving non-citizens.
Florida’s law, signed by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, prohibits individuals “domiciled” in China, who aren’t U.S. citizens or green card holders, from buying property in the state.
The law also restricts citizens of several other countries, including Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia, and North Korea, from owning property near sensitive installations like military bases, power plants, and airports. Exceptions exist for holders of non-tourist visas from these countries to own a single property at least five miles away from such critical infrastructure.
U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Luck, a nominee of Republican former President Donald Trump, noted that he believed three of the four plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the law, as they’ve resided in Florida for years and have familial and employment ties to the state.
Representing the state, Nathan Forrester from the Florida Attorney General’s office argued that federal oversight of real estate transactions involving foreign nationals is limited, with many transactions exempt from scrutiny under federal regulations, including single-family home purchases.
Meanwhile, Ashley Gorski of the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the plaintiffs, argued that Florida’s law encroaches upon a fundamental federal government function by effectively creating its own foreign policy stance.
She contended that this undermines the president’s authority to speak for the nation with a unified voice on foreign policy matters.
The panel also included Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee, who remained silent during the proceedings.
