• U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor has denied a request for a preliminary injunction on Senate Bill 264, which restricts individuals from certain countries from acquiring residential properties near critical infrastructure and military installations.
• The judge’s ruling states that the plaintiffs failed to provide a sufficient argument that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. The judge additionally opined that the law’s classification is based on alienage, citizenship, and lawful-permanent resident status, not on the protected characteristics outlined in the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represents the plaintiffs, expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling, stating that the law expands housing discrimination and violates both the Constitution and the FHA.
• The ACLU also points out that the bill’s terminology is vague and effectively restricts major residential and economically significant areas due to the proximity of military bases.

A federal judge on Thursday denied a request that sought a preliminary injunction on Senate Bill 264, which prohibits individuals hailing from certain countries from acquiring residential properties near critical infrastructure and military installations.

The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor, asserts that plaintiffs were unable to present a substantive enough argument to show that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. Moreover, Winsor opined that the plaintiff’s secondary argument that the measure violates the Fair Housing Act (FHA) falls apart because the bill’s language makes no mention of “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin,” rather, imposing regulations based on permanent resident status.

“Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their discriminatory-intent claim,” wrote Winsor. “The problem for Plaintiffs is that, as noted above, Florida’s law does not make any classification based on “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” It instead classifies based on alienage, citizenship, and lawful-permanent resident status—none of which are covered by the FHA”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is partially representing the plaintiffs through the case, issued a statement following Winsor’s decision claiming that it did not resolve the underlying legal arguments brought in the case.

“While today’s decision is disheartening, our clients will continue to fight for their rights to equality and fairness on appeal,” said Ashley Gorski, senior staff attorney at ACLU’s National Security Project. “Florida’s law legitimizes and expands housing discrimination, in violation of both the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act.”

The group also contends that the terminology used in the bill’s drafting is vaguely defined, pointing towards Florida’s 21 large military bases, many of which reside within five miles of cities like Orlando, Miami, and Tampa — putting many major residential and economically-important areas completely off-limits.

The legislation establishes restrictions on citizens of China, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Chinese residents in Florida, alongside a real estate brokerage catering predominantly to Chinese clientele, jointly filed a lawsuit (Shen v. Simpson) against the state earlier this year under the assertion that the law would place an unjustified burden of suspicion on anyone with an Asian, Russian, Iranian, Cuban, Venezuelan, or Syrian-sounding name seeking to purchase property.

The challenge further argues that the measure will, in practice, institutionalize and broaden housing discrimination against Asian individuals, thereby violating both the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act. In late June, the United States Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in support of the suit.

Attorneys representing the state of Florida filed a memorandum of law in July in opposition to the lawsuit. The document attempted to prove the legislation’s constitutionality on the grounds that the ruling upholds Florida’s “fundamental sovereign prerogative” to regulate the land within its own borders. The attorneys added that the state possesses the broad constitutional authority to regulate the acquisition of its own land and has not acted here based on national origin or race.

State leaders, including Gov. Ron DeSantis and Commissioner of Agriculture Wilton Simpson, previously vowed to “crack down” on countries like China in response to foreign businesses reportedly buying up large tracts of farmland.