Florida AG Moody, ACLU continue to spar over law restricting Chinese land ownership

The legal back and forth between Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and lawyers opposing a new law that restricts some Chinese citizens from owning property in Florida is continuing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Four Chinese immigrants and a real estate company that caters to Chinese clients filed a federal lawsuit in May and have requested an emergency preliminary injunction blocking a law. U.S. District Judge Allen C. Winsor has scheduled a hearing next week to hear that motion.

The law (SB 264) prohibits individuals who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents and whose “domicile” is in China or six other “foreign countries of concern” from owning or purchasing real property in the state. It imposes civil and criminal penalties for violations of the land ownership provisions in the law, with the most onerous being a third-degree felony for Chinese purchases of land, which is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

The ACLU of Florida and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a lawsuit in coordination with the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance last month after DeSantis signed the bill into law, contending that it will codify and expand housing discrimination against people of Asian descent in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Fair Housing Act. They subsequently have asked Judge Winsor to implement a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect.

But Florida Attorney General Ashly Moody responded in a legal filing last week claiming that the judge should reject that request for a variety of reasons, starting out with the fact that the Chinese citizens lack standing because they are not “domiciled” in China and thus are not subject to the statute.

The state also disputes claims by Multi-Choice Realty, a real-estate company that works with Chinese citizens, that it stands to lose up to 25 percent of its business.

“The only details Multi-Choice provides about its customers is that they are ‘Chinese’ or Chinese-speaking,’ but SB 264 does not restrict land ownership based on race or language; it does so primarily based on domicile,” the state said in their filing.

And Moody and the state disputes that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, that it was motivated by racial or national-origin animus, and that the plaintiffs have failed to show discrimination under the Federal Housing Act.

On Tuesday, attorneys for the four Chinese citizens and Multi-Choice fired back in their own filing.

“The State fails to overcome Plaintiffs’ showing,” the brief reads. “While the State’s litigation position that Plaintiffs are not ‘domiciled’ in China is welcome news as far as it goes, it does not bind Defendants or provide reliable assurance for Plaintiffs and other essential participants in property transactions. If anything, the State’s debatable ‘domicile’ theory underscores how unconstitutionally vague SB 264 is. The State’s other arguments fail to grapple with current precedent, misread the FHA [Federal Housing Act], and largely concede the merits of Plaintiffs’ preemption claim.”

The attorneys for the Chinese plaintiffs got a boost last month when the U.S. Department of Justice filed a legal brief contending that the new law is both discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Federal Judge Allen C. Winsor will decide on whether to implement an emergency preliminary injunction blocking a law on July 18.

Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Diane Rado for questions: [email protected]. Follow Florida Phoenix on Facebook and Twitter.