“This ban clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections against discrimination,” Abdu wrote.
The appellate court panel stopped short of blocking the law entirely, but it did help the plaintiffs in the case who expressed concern that they would be forced to cancel the contract they signed to buy a home. An injunction against two of them was granted.
“Their recent and pending trades create an imminent risk of irreparable harm if not halted, thus tilting the balance of equity in their favor.” the panel wrote.
Gov. Ron DeSantis defended the law during his presidential campaign last year and criticized President Joe Biden’s administration, which sided with the plaintiffs in the case. Mr. DeSantis, who signed the bill, FL SB264(23R)The law was passed in May, but he, who is not a defendant in the lawsuit, tweeted in July that the Biden administration “stands with Communist China, but I stand with the American people.”
Julia Friedland, the governor’s deputy press secretary, said the governor’s office disagreed with the decision to grant a preliminary injunction against the two plaintiffs.
“That said, our laws remain in effect, we are confident in our legal position on the merits, and we will continue to fight back against malign foreign influence in Florida.” I intend to,” she said.
The ACLU applauded the Eleventh Circuit’s decision.
“There is no question that Florida’s discriminatory housing laws are unconstitutional,” ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Ashley Gorsky said in a statement. “The court’s decision has brought great relief to two of our clients. We will continue to fight to prevent this law from being more widely enforced.”
The law specifically prohibits persons of Chinese origin who are “residing” in the United States and who are not “legal” residents of the United States from purchasing or owning a single parcel of more than two acres. The land cannot be within 8 miles of a military installation. Several other states, including Texas and Louisiana, considered similar measures last year.
Florida’s bill, supported by Republican Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson, would further restrict farmland ownership by people from six countries considered hostile, including China, Iran and Cuba. There is.
A spokeswoman for the state Department of Agriculture, which held a workshop this week on proposed rules to implement the new law, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In June, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a “statement of interest” in the case, arguing that the new law violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
In June, the Justice Department said, “These unlawful provisions seriously harm people simply because of their place of origin, violate federal civil rights laws, undermine constitutional rights, and promote public safety.” “It does not advance the state’s objectives.”
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision is the latest court decision on this issue. U.S. District Judge Allen Windsor, appointed by former President Donald Trump, said in August that those challenging the new law intentionally discriminated against Chinese people when the Republican-controlled Congress passed the restrictive bill. The court ruled that the court had not shown that it had been carried out.
Bethany Lee, legal director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs, said Thursday that the state law clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Stated.
“Today’s ruling comes at a time when many others are considering passing similar racist legislation steeped in a history in which Asians were told they were ineligible for and did not belong to citizenship,” he said in a statement. This should serve as a warning to the state.” “As a nation, we need to move forward and enact laws that protect all communities, rather than going back in time and reinstating outdated laws that were enacted over 100 years ago.”