- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Aerospace & Defence, Consumer Industries and Environment & Waste Management industries
New York, N.Y. (December 4, 2025)- On November 4, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a long-anticipated decision in Shen v. Simpson, upholding the constitutionality of a Florida law, SB 264, which restricts ownership of or investment in Florida real estate by individuals "domiciled" in the People's Republic of China and to a lesser extent, other countries of concern (which are identified in the statute as Russia, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria) who are not American citizens or green card holders. The restriction encompasses residential, commercial and agricultural real estate. Oral argument in the case was held on April 19, 2024, and it took the court almost one year and seven months to issue its opinion, an unusually long turn-around time.
This Update follows previous Lewis Brisbois alerts on Florida's lawand legal challenges to it.
The lawsuit was brought by four Chinese nationals living in Florida on temporary visas or with a pending asylum application and a real estate firm in Florida that claims to do significant business on behalf of Chinese purchasers. The court held that none of the plaintiffs had legal standing to challenge the purchase restriction of SB 264 because all four individual plaintiffs had bought property before the law's effective date and they had no concrete plans to buy additional property soon. Moreover, the court noted that the state agreed the four individuals are "domiciled" in Florida even though they did not have permanent immigration status under federal law and has accordingly interpreted the newly enacted purchase restriction to not apply to them. The court found that the plaintiff firm lacked standing because it failed to demonstrate that it had a client directly impacted by SB 264.
In contrast, the court found that plaintiffs did have standing to challenge the other requirements of SB 264: a requirement that nationals from the countries of concern file a registration statement listing the real estate property they own in Florida and a requirement that anyone (regardless of nationality) who buys property in Florida sign an affidavit verifying compliance with SB 264. But the court further determined that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits because the aforementioned requirements are likely to pass constitutional muster. The court stated that it is bound by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1923 decision in Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, which upheld a Washington State law that prohibited foreign nationals from owning agricultural land, rejecting arguments that Terrace has been implicitly overruled by decisions from a more recent era. The court further held that even assuming that Terrace has been overruled, the modern constitutional doctrine that applies the "strict scrutiny" test to state laws based on alienage protects only permanent residents (i.e., green card holders), not foreign nationals who have permission from the federal government to remain in the United States only temporarily (like the four individual plaintiffs). This narrow reading of the Equal Protection Clause as it applies to foreign nationals is in accord with settled law in the Fifth (covering Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) and Sixth (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) Circuits, although the Second Circuit (which encompasses New York, Connecticut and Vermont) has taken a contrary view on the scope of equal protection.
It is not clear whether the plaintiffs will seek review of this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. While the continued viability of Terrace or the circuit split on whether strict scrutiny applies to non-permanent residents could prompt interest from the high court, it may decide to defer any review until such time as a plaintiff with the necessary standing challenges the purchase restriction of SB 264.
The upshot of this decision is SB 264 as interpreted by Florida is here to stay for the time being. A foreign national living in China or one of the countries of concern will generally be ineligible to purchase real estate in Florida. While the Eleventh Circuit technically did not decide the issue regarding purchase restriction due to lack of standing, its full embrace of Terrace and its narrow view of the scope of strict scrutiny means that even if a plaintiff with standing were to come forward, a legal challenge would very likely fail at the district or appellate level.
In addition, it is possible that Florida, which is increasingly conservative politically, might be emboldened to reinterpret the term "domiciled" more strictly to apply the purchase restriction to a broader universe of foreign nationals, including individuals who are living there long-term but do not have permanent immigration status. Moreover, this decision could encourage the two other states within the Eleventh Circuit, namely Georgia and Alabama, to enact similar laws. As a result, owners and investors from the countries of concern in any real estate transactions are well advised to take steps to obtain competent legal counsel.
Lewis Brisbois's attorneys are actively engaged in the wide range of legal issues in this area and are advising clients on managing legal and business risk as events continue to develop at an accelerated pace. For more information, contact the author or editors of this alert. Visit our Ukraine Conflict, International Trade, Export, Import and Investment Controls & National Security Practicepage for additional alerts in this area.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
