A U.S. judge in Florida has ruled against blocking the state’s law that prevents citizens of certain countries, including China, from owning homes or land within its borders.
U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor Upholds Florida Law
The decision was made by U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor in Tallahassee, Florida, who stated that the ban, which is based on citizenship rather than race or national origin, likely does not violate constitutional principles or housing discrimination laws.
The law, which prohibits individuals “domiciled” in China without U.S. citizenship or green cards from purchasing real estate in Florida, has faced legal challenges. Four Chinese nationals sought to block the law through a lawsuit, but their bid was denied by Judge Winsor.
Judge Winsor reasoned that since the law applies to those “domiciled” in China, it could potentially include individuals not originally from China. Thus, he concluded that the law doesn’t discriminate based on protected characteristics.
Controversies Behind the Law Signed by Governor Ron DeSantis
The controversial law gained attention when Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, a U.S. presidential candidate, signed it in May. The governor argued that the law would safeguard Americans from undue influence by the Chinese Communist Party.
Related: Florida Draws a Line: Governor DeSantis Signed Land Ban to Keep CCP Influence at Bay
Under the law, citizens of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela are also restricted from owning property near military installations and critical infrastructure like power plants and airports. A limited exception exists for holders of non-tourist visas from these countries, allowing them to own a single property at least five miles away from such critical sites.
Conclusion:
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor highlights the complex balance between concerns of discrimination and national security. The judge’s reasoning, that the ban is based on citizenship rather than race or national origin, has implications not only for this specific case but also for the broader debate surrounding property ownership rights.
