NAPABA and APABA Tampa Bay Disagree with Federal Court’s Decision to Uphold Florida’s Alien Land Law

For Immediate Release:
August 17, 2023

NAPABA and APABA Tampa Bay Disagree with Federal Court’s Decision to Uphold Florida’s Discriminatory Alien Land Law

WASHINGTON - The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) and the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Tampa Bay (APABA Tampa Bay) profoundly disagree with a federal court ruling today that upheld the validity of the Florida Conveyances to Foreign Entities Law (“SB 264”), a discriminatory statute that would prohibit individuals from purchasing real property in Florida based on national origin.

In May 2023, after Florida enacted SB 264, several plaintiffs – represented by the American Civil Liberties of Florida and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund – immediately challenged the law in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. After the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to bar the enforcement of SB 264, NAPABA and APABA Tampa Bay joined a coalition of partners and submitted an amicus brief in support of the injunction. Notably, the United States, in a Statement of Interest submitted by the U.S. Department of Justice, supported the injunction and advised that SB 264 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Today, the District Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It concluded that SB 264 “does not facially discriminate against noncitizens based on race or ancestry [and] does not discriminate against noncitizens based on ‘the particular country in which one was born,’” based on the notion that the law would apply equally to a person of non-Chinese descent who is domiciled in China.  

We disagree. The Florida statute is a textbook example of invidious discrimination. The plain sweep of SB 264 not only places restrictions on individuals from China and certain other countries, including those lawfully present in the United States, in purchasing property, but it also imposes greater criminal penalties on Chinese buyers than for those from other restricted countries. The law goes so far as to single out an entire section dedicated to the People’s Republic of China. As NAPABA and the coalition argued its amicus brief, SB 264 “bears chilling resemblance” to past unconstitutional alien land laws that violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution.   

The District Court’s reasoning relies heavily on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923), which upheld Washington State’s alien land law and barred a Japanese citizen from leasing farmland. In doing so, the District Court endorses an outdated historical legal argument that alien land laws do not violate equal protection because they applied broadly to all aliens ineligible for citizenship. This theory completely disregards the fact that at the time of enactment, Asian immigrants were not eligible to naturalize. Terrace, which has not been directly overturned, noted in 1923 that it was “reasonable” that “eligible aliens are free white persons and persons of African nativity or descent,” and that “the natives of European countries are eligible. Japanese, Chinese and Malays are not.” Resting today’s decision on such discredited case law and reasoning is unacceptable. 

Despite the setback today, NAPABA’s vigorous advocacy will continue. NAPABA and its Florida affiliates have long led efforts to overcome the state’s legacy of anti-Asian alien land laws, including when Florida became the last state in the United States to abolish such discriminatory language from its constitution. In addition to the work in several states, NAPABA has endorsed legislation in Congress to nullify such state discriminatory laws and urged Congress “to consider the impact that proposed legislation could have on AANHPI communities, and to work with AANHPI groups to find ways to address national security concerns while creating an environment that welcomes people who are committed to the success and safety of our country.”

At bottom, policymakers are free to address the legitimate national security concerns of the United States, but they may not enact discriminatory laws on the backs of the AANHPI community.  

###

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), represents the interests of over 60,000 Asian Pacific American (APA) legal professionals and nearly 90 national, state, and local APA bar associations. NAPABA is a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities. Through its national network, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of all backgrounds in the legal profession.