What Florida Did
Florida SB 264 was signed by Governor Ron DeSantis on May 8, 2023, and took effect on July 1, 2023.[1] The statute, codified as Chapter 692 of the Florida Statutes, prohibits purchase of Florida real property by individuals and entities from seven designated countries: the People's Republic of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria.[9]
The law operates in three tiers. The first two apply to all seven nations. The third, broader provision applies only to nationals of the People's Republic of China, who face a near-total prohibition on real property acquisition statewide. A Green Card carve-out permits qualifying Chinese permanent residents to purchase one residential property up to two acres, provided it sits more than five miles from any military installation.[9]
| Tier | Statute | Who Is Restricted |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural Land | Fla. Stat. § 692.202 | All foreign principals from seven countries of concern China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria |
| Property Near Military or Critical Infrastructure | Fla. Stat. § 692.203 | Within 10 miles of military installations or critical infrastructure All seven countries of concern |
| All Other Real Property (Including Residential) | Fla. Stat. § 692.204 | Any real property in Florida Chinese nationals only (with narrow Green Card exception) |
Source: Florida Statutes Chapter 692[9]
Enforcement runs through the closing process. Every real estate purchase in Florida now requires a buyer affidavit attesting that the purchaser is not a prohibited foreign principal.[9] Knowingly violating the statute is a third-degree felony. Submitting a false affidavit is a first-degree felony. Properties acquired in violation of the law are subject to civil forfeiture proceedings initiated by the Florida Department of Commerce.[9]
Historical Note
Florida had a constitutional provision restricting alien land ownership from 1926 until its repeal by ballot amendment in 2008. SB 264 represents a return to statutory foreign ownership restrictions after a fifteen-year interval.[9]
The Wave That Followed
Florida's law was the most expansive of its kind in modern American real estate, but it was not isolated. Between 2023 and 2025, legislatures in more than twenty states enacted laws restricting foreign acquisition of real property. The National Agricultural Law Center, which tracks these statutes, recorded a near-tripling of state-level activity over the period.[3]
Most of these laws focus on agricultural land or property within a specified distance of military installations, defense contractors, and critical infrastructure. The motivating concern in state legislatures has been national security and food supply, framed around investment by entities tied to the Chinese government. Only a small number of state laws extend the restriction to residential property in general.
| State | Year | Bill | Property Scope |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | 2023 | SB 264 | Agricultural, near-military, all property (China) |
| Alabama | 2023 | SB 231 | Agricultural land |
| Arkansas | 2023 | Act 636 | Agricultural and military-adjacent land |
| Idaho | 2024 | HB 496 | Agricultural and military-adjacent land |
| Indiana | 2024 | HB 1183 | Agricultural land |
| Louisiana | 2024 | SB 415 | Agricultural and immovable property |
| Mississippi | 2024 | HB 1077 | Agricultural land |
| Montana | 2023 | SB 203 | Agricultural and military-adjacent land |
| North Dakota | 2023 | SB 2371 | Agricultural land |
| Ohio | 2024 | HB 1 | Agricultural and near-military land |
| South Carolina | 2024 | H 5042 | Agricultural and military-adjacent land |
| South Dakota | 2024 | HB 1231 | Agricultural land |
| Tennessee | 2024 | HB 40 | Agricultural land |
| Texas | 2025 | SB 17 | Agricultural, residential, commercial |
| Utah | 2024 | HB 516 | Agricultural and military-adjacent land |
| Virginia | 2024 | SB 14 | Agricultural land near military installations |
Source: National Agricultural Law Center, State Foreign Ownership Laws database[3]; state bill texts
Two features of this wave stand out. The first is bipartisan composition. Restrictions passed under both Republican and Democratic majorities, in Sun Belt and Midwestern legislatures alike. The second is the trajectory of property scope. Early laws were almost exclusively agricultural. Florida's 2023 statute extended into residential. Texas SB 17, signed by Governor Greg Abbott in June 2025, applied similar logic to residential and commercial property across the state.[4]
The direction of state-level lawmaking has been toward broader rather than narrower coverage.
How Courts Have Ruled
Florida's law was challenged within weeks of its passage. Four Chinese nationals living in Florida on student and work visas filed Shen v. Simpson in May 2023, asserting that SB 264 violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and was preempted by federal immigration and foreign affairs authority.[2]
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in August 2023. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part on February 1, 2024, granting a preliminary injunction protecting the four named plaintiffs from enforcement.[2] The court's decision was narrow: it found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their preemption claim under the Fair Housing Act and similar federal statutes, but the relief extended only to the named parties. The statute itself remained in force against all other affected individuals.
The case continued under the caption Shen v. Uthmeier following a change in the Florida Attorney General's office. As of mid-2026, no court has held SB 264 facially unconstitutional. No state foreign buyer restriction enacted in the 2023-2025 wave has been struck down on the merits.[2][3]
Constitutional Background
State authority over alien land ownership is grounded in long-standing precedent. In Terrace v. Thompson (1923), the Supreme Court upheld a Washington statute restricting land ownership by aliens ineligible for citizenship.[8] Subsequent decisions, most notably Oyama v. California (1948), narrowed the application of such laws as applied to U.S.-citizen children of restricted parents but did not strip states of property regulatory authority.
More recent cases have addressed federal preemption rather than the underlying state power. The Eleventh Circuit's narrow ruling in Shen v. Simpson illustrates the current legal frame: state foreign ownership restrictions are permissible in principle, but specific applications may conflict with federal anti-discrimination statutes.
What State Laws Don't Solve
The state record establishes feasibility. It does not solve the underlying problem. Three structural limits remain.
Patchwork Geography
Real estate capital moves across state lines. A foreign buyer restricted in Florida or Texas can redirect to states without restrictions. National Association of Realtors data show that foreign purchases are concentrated in six states, but the remaining forty-four states cumulatively absorb 38% of foreign volume.[7] A state-by-state response cannot close the national market.
Country-of-Origin Vulnerability
State laws are typically framed around designated adversary nations. This is the structural feature most exposed to constitutional challenge. Classifications based on national origin invite scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause and may be preempted by federal immigration authority. A citizenship-based framework, applying equally to all non-permanent residents regardless of origin, raises none of these issues.
Incomplete Beneficial Ownership Disclosure
Most state statutes rely on affidavits at closing rather than aggregate beneficial ownership rules. A foreign principal can purchase through a U.S.-domiciled LLC, with the ownership chain obscured by intermediate entities. FinCEN's beneficial ownership reporting rule under the Corporate Transparency Act provides a federal framework that state laws cannot independently replicate.[5]
The Federal Framework Today
Existing federal authority over foreign real estate purchases is narrow. The Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 requires foreign persons holding U.S. agricultural land to file disclosures with the Department of Agriculture, but it is a reporting mandate rather than a restriction.[6] The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, expanded by the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018, reviews certain real estate transactions near military and intelligence sites for national security risk, but its remit does not extend to general residential property.[10]
Multiple bills introduced in the 118th and 119th Congresses would tighten federal restrictions on foreign ownership, primarily of agricultural land and property near defense installations. None as of mid-2026 has been enacted into law.[11] No federal statute restricts foreign purchase of residential real estate in general.
How the Act Builds on This Precedent
Policy 4 of the Affordability and Immigration Act adopts the principle established by state legislatures while resolving the limits exposed by the state record. The Act's framework differs from the Florida and Texas model in four respects.
| Feature | State Approach (FL, TX) | Act Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Who is restricted | Nationals of designated countries (typically 4-7 adversary nations) | All non-permanent residents, regardless of country of origin |
| Permitted exception | Varies; FL allows one residential property for Chinese Green Card holders | Permanent residents (Green Card) may purchase without restriction |
| Property covered | Usually agricultural; FL and TX include residential | All residential real property nationwide |
| Enforcement | Criminal penalties (felony); buyer affidavit at closing | Civil divestment with 2-year window; beneficial ownership disclosure |
| Equal protection exposure | Country-of-origin classifications face constitutional challenge | Citizenship-based classifications have settled precedent |
| Geographic coverage | State-by-state patchwork; transactions can shift across borders | Single federal standard nationwide |
Source: Florida Statutes Chapter 692[9]; Texas SB 17[4]; Affordability and Immigration Act (Policy 4)
The substantive shift from state to federal is from country-of-origin to immigration status. State laws target nationals of specific adversary regimes, an approach driven by national security framing. The Act applies a single standard tied to permanent residency: a Green Card holder may purchase, a non-resident may not. This treats all non-permanent residents identically and aligns the restriction with Congress's settled plenary power over immigration classification.[12]
The enforcement shift is from criminal to civil. Florida and Texas use felony charges and forfeiture. The Act uses a two-year divestment window paired with beneficial ownership disclosure. The objective is the same: clear title transfer from non-resident foreign owners to permanent residents and citizens. The mechanism is less punitive, more administratively tractable, and avoids the criminalization of property holding by individuals who entered the U.S. market lawfully under prior rules.
Policy Connection
The state record answers three questions that have historically blocked federal action on foreign residential purchases:
- -Is it constitutional? State foreign ownership laws have been litigated since 2023. None has been struck down on the merits. The Eleventh Circuit's narrow injunction in Shen v. Simpson left the underlying statute in force.
- -Is it politically viable? More than twenty states have enacted restrictions across party lines. Florida's law passed with overwhelming legislative support. Texas followed two years later under a different governing coalition.
- -Is it enforceable? Florida's affidavit-at-closing model has functioned at scale since July 2023. The state has executed forfeiture proceedings and issued compliance guidance.
What remains is the federal step: a single national standard, framed around immigration status rather than country of origin, with civil divestment and beneficial ownership transparency. Policy 4 of the Act supplies that step.