A federal appeals court has upheld Florida’s controversial ban on Chinese citizens purchasing real estate, reinforcing one of the nation’s toughest laws on foreign land ownership.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that Senate Bill 264, which Governor Ron DeSantis signed in 2023, does not violate federal law or discriminate against Chinese buyers. This allows Florida to continue enforcing the ban and could inspire similar legislation across the country.
What the law restricts
Individuals and entities that are defined as “foreign principles” under the law are restricted from purchasing agricultural land as well as select residential or commercial real estate in Florida. The bill identifies China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria as foreign countries of concern.
The law is not limited to government officials, corporations or any individual “who is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident” of People’s Republic of China. Chinese nationals without citizenship or green card status cannot buy homes or land in the state.
Supporters cite national security
Governor Ron DeSantis defended the legislation as a move to protect national interests. He argued that hostile foreign entities should be prevented from gaining control of land around important Florida infrastructure or military bases. The government framed the law as part of a strategy to strengthen state sovereignty and global tensions.
Critics call it discriminatory
Civil rights group, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the law and claimed it unfairly targets Chinese nationals and Asian residents, arguing that it violates constitutional protections under the Equal Protection Clause and oversteps immigration and property rights federal authority. Alien land laws prevented Asian immigrants from owning property in several U.S. states acknowledged historical echoes of the early 20th century.
What happens next
While the appellate ruling allows the law to stand for now, advocacy groups are expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome could set a precedent on how far states can go in restricting foreign ownership of real estate, say legal experts. The decision adds another layer of complexity to a volatile market shaped by concerns about security, affordability, and international investment.
