The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has temporarily suspended portions of a state law that prohibits Chinese nationals from acquiring property in Florida. This decision comes in response to legal challenges claiming that the law discriminates unconstitutionally against certain individuals based on their country of origin.
Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida had previously endorsed the law — named SB 264 or the Interests of Foreign Countries Act — as a necessary measure to combat what he describes as the “malign influence” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) within the state. The law was enacted on May 8, 2023, but faced immediate objections in the judicial domain.
The temporary halt issued on Feb. 1 applies specifically to two of the five plaintiffs involved in suing the State of Florida over SB 264. The appellate court’s decision provides these individuals relief ahead of the court’s final verdict, which will be informed by the oral arguments scheduled for April. These particular plaintiffs, the court notes, demonstrated a pressing threat of “irreparable harm” due to the law’s implications on their imminent or ongoing property transactions.
Despite this setback, DeSantis’ administration expressed its disagreement with the 11th Circuit Court’s ruling and vowed to continue its defense of the legislation. “We are confident in our legal position on the merits,” remarked Julia Friedland, the governor’s deputy press secretary, underscoring their commitment to oppose foreign interference in Florida.
On the other hand, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represent some of the plaintiffs challenging the law, have welcomed the court’s interim measure. ACLU’s senior attorney Ashley Gorski conveyed that the ruling brings substantial reprieve to their clients and reaffirmed the group’s dedication to overturn the enforcement of SB 264.
Though the preliminary injunction addresses a fraction of the concerned plaintiffs, the legal struggle underlying Florida’s SB 264 persists as the case approaches further scrutiny.
The current scenario unfolds in the aftermath of a Florida district court’s decision that earlier went against the plaintiffs’ pleas for an injunction against the law.
