In May 2023, the Florida Legislature enacted Senate Bill 264, which included three provisions targeting real property transactions involving persons domiciled in China who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The first provision prohibited these individuals from purchasing or owning any interest in Florida real property, with limited exceptions. The second required them to register any real property they already owned. The third mandated that all purchasers of Florida real property sign an affidavit attesting to their compliance with the law. Four Chinese citizens residing in Florida on various visas and a real estate brokerage firm sued to enjoin these provisions, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause, the Fair Housing Act, the Due Process Clause, and federal preemption. The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs had standing but were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the standing and merits of the appeal.
The court addressed the case in two parts: standing and the merits of the preliminary injunction. First, regarding standing, the court applied the 'independent obligation' to ensure a case or controversy exists for each challenged provision. For the purchase restriction, the court found no plaintiff had standing. The plaintiffs either were domiciled in Florida rather than China, or they had already acquired an interest in their property before the statute's effective date, or they lacked specific plans to purchase additional property. Because no plaintiff intended to engage in conduct proscribed by the purchase restriction, there was no imminent injury. However, for the registration and affidavit requirements, the court found standing. Plaintiff Wang was arguably domiciled in China and owned property near a military installation, triggering the registration requirement. Plaintiff Liu intended to purchase a second home, triggering the affidavit requirement. These burdens constituted concrete injuries. Second, regarding the merits of the registration and affidavit requirements, the court rejected the plaintiffs' Equal Protection claims. The court held that strict scrutiny does not apply to alienage classifications involving non-immigrant aliens who are not lawful permanent residents. Instead, rational basis review applies. The court relied on the Supreme Court's 'Terrace cases' from 1923, which remain binding precedent, allowing states to regulate noncitizen land ownership if not arbitrary. The state's interest in national security provided a rational basis. The court also found no evidence of intentional discrimination under the Arlington Heights factors. Regarding the Fair Housing Act, the court ruled the provisions did not prohibit the sale or rental of dwellings, so they did not constitute discriminatory housing practices. On the Due Process claim, the court found the terms 'military installation' and 'critical infrastructure facility' were clearly defined, and 'domicile' is a standard legal term. Finally, on preemption, the court held the state law did not conflict with the federal Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act. The state law complemented federal efforts by providing information to assist federal review and did not prohibit transactions that federal law allowed.
The purchase restriction of Florida Senate Bill 264 remains unchallenged by these specific plaintiffs, as the case was remanded to deny the injunction without prejudice on that issue due to lack of standing. The registration and affidavit requirements remain in force, as the court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The decision clarifies that rational basis review applies to alienage classifications involving non-immigrant aliens in the context of real property regulation and that state laws complementing federal foreign investment reviews are not preempted.