US Court Upholds Florida's Law Restricting Property Ownership for Foreigners

A federal appeals court has declined to preliminarily stop Florida’s discriminatory housing law, which prohibits many immigrants from China and six other nations from buying properties in the state. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a preliminary injunction against Florida’s discriminatory housing statute, SB 264. The law will remain in effect while the case is pending, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The court determined that none of the plaintiffs had “standing” to contest the limitations on real estate acquisitions imposed by SB 264. However, the court made it clear that Chinese immigrants who live in Florida and plan to stay there permanently are exempt from these limits.

SB 264 prohibits non-U.S. citizens or permanent residents with a “domicile” in China from owning property in Florida. The only exception is severely limited: those with non-tourist visas or who have been granted refuge may buy one home property under two acres that is not within five miles of any “military installation.” A similar but less stringent rule applies to many immigrants from Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Syria.

US lawmakers have also introduced bills to bar foreigners, including lawful permanent residents (green card holders), from owning land and property in certain states. Texas already restricts Chinese nationals from buying property. Ohio is debating a bill that would forbid foreign nationals and some green card holders from buying land in sizable areas of the state. This legislation proposes limiting foreign entities’ purchases of certain properties, notably agricultural land and land within 25 miles of military sites and essential infrastructure facilities.

The implications of these laws and proposed bills are significant for the real estate market and for immigrants looking to establish roots in the United States. Critics argue that these laws are discriminatory and violate constitutional rights, while proponents claim they are necessary for national security and to protect local resources. The ongoing legal battles will likely continue to shape the landscape of property ownership for immigrants in the coming years.