The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued and published a decision in the Shen v. Simpson case, an appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (D.C. Docket No. 4:23-cv-00208-AW-MAF). The opinion was published on November 4, 2025.
The recent federal court decision in Shen v. Simpson has drawn national attention, especially among Chinese and Chinese-American investors, professionals, and business owners in the United States. The ruling, issued by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, is about much more than one state’s property law. It’s about how far U.S. states can go in limiting who can own land and how such limits may affect the Chinese community’s ability to build lives and businesses in America, and the evolving trend across many jurisdictions to enact these laws.
The case arises from Florida’s enactment of Senate Bill 264 (“SB 264”), codified at Florida Statutes §§ 692.201–.205, which places restrictions and registration obligations relating to the ownership of real property in Florida on persons who are “foreign principals” domiciled in certain “countries of concern,” including China, the Russian Federation, Iran, and North Korea.
The Eleventh Circuit’s Court of Appeals published opinion affirms in part and reverses in part.
First, the court affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction as to the registration and affidavit requirements of SB 264. That is, the plaintiffs had standing (in part) to challenge these, but they had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims as to those provisions.
Second, the court reversed and remanded the denial of the injunction as to the purchase-restriction provision (the outright ban on persons domiciled in China purchasing real property) on the basis that none of the plaintiffs established standing to challenge that particular restriction. In other words, the plaintiffs lacked a concrete imminent injury traceable to that provision. Judge Robert Luck, who was joined in the opinion by Judge Barbara Lagoa, detailed the circumstances of each of four individual plaintiffs.
For example, Judge Luck wrote that plaintiff Yifan Shen, who has a work visa, has lived in Florida since 2019 and signed a contract in April 2023 to purchase a home in Orlando. The law applies to people who did not own “any interest” in property before July 1, 2023, the opinion said. The opinion said, “Shen is not domiciled in China” and is domiciled in Florida, which means the law doesn’t apply to her. “According to Shen, she has lived in the United States since 2016 and in Florida since 2019, her employer is trying to obtain a permanent labor certification for her, she ‘…plan[s] to apply for permanent residency in the United States,’ and she intends for the Orlando home to be her primary residence,” the opinion said. “Shen, therefore, is present in Florida and intends to remain indefinitely. The fact that Shen hasn’t obtained permanent immigration status doesn’t change the domicile analysis, because Florida law allows noncitizens subject to removal to establish Florida as their domicile.”
Finally, the Eleventh Circuit emphasized that standing is a threshold issue: without showing a credible threat of enforcement or concrete injury, one cannot challenge a challenged statute in an injunctive relief context.
The court did not grant relief at this stage on the merits of the Equal Protection, Fair Housing Act, and/or Supremacy claims because the court found that the analysis of the merits was truncated due to the standing deficiency for the purchase provision.
What are the implications of this new decision?
Persons domiciled in China (and not U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the state of Florida) face a statutory prohibition on acquiring any real property in Florida under SB 264’s § 692.204(1)(a)(4). While the timing of enforcement may evolve (e.g., motions for injunctive relief, stays, appeals), the statute remains active and effective.
Businesses or Individuals domiciled outside China or with U.S. citizenship/permanent-resident status may avoid direct prohibition, but still may be impacted by registration/affidavit obligations or secondary restrictions.
Any investment plans involving the purchase of real property should assess the “domicile” status and citizenship/immigration status of prospective purchasers, as the statute hinges on those definitions. Therefore, Clients planning corporate or investment activity in Florida (or using U.S. real-estate holdings) should account for the risk of regulatory hurdles or registration burdens under SB 264.
For Chinese nationals residing in Florida on non‐immigrant visas (H-1B, work visas, L-1, etc.), understanding their “domicile” status is crucial: SB 264 defines “foreign principal” to include “any person who is domiciled in…” a “…country of concern” and is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. A change in immigration status, such as going from an L-1A to a green card (permanent resident), may alter or reduce exposure to this statute, but careful planning is required.
While the Eleventh Circuit held that the purchase-ban component cannot yet be enjoined due to standing defects, the statute remains vulnerable in future litigation on the merits (Equal Protection / FHA). Therefore, businesses should continue monitoring any further developments in this case.
What can be done to mitigate risk?
Investors should consider structural and organizational alternatives. These may include:
1) acquisition via a U.S. citizen or permanent-resident spouse;
2) set up a corporate entity not controlled by an individual domiciled in a “country of concern”;
3) locate investment outside the restricted zones in Florida.
Nonetheless, each individual’s or business’s unique circumstances will affect the analysis and recommended risk mitigation strategies, so it is best to first consult legal counsel to determine what is the most appropriate action in each party’s situation.
Similar Restrictive Laws Across the U.S. – Texas’s SB17
The recent decision in Shen v. Simpson is a part of the growing sentiment and legislation across the U.S. and its different states aimed at limiting certain foreign ownership of real property, particularly linked to China. Similar to Florida’s SB 264, Texas’s SB 17 shares the same policy rationale: national security and critical infrastructure concerns, but they differ in timing, scope, and posture.
Key similarities:
Both laws single out persons and entities connected to a short list of countries of concern (including China) and impose acquisition restrictions or outright bans on land ownership by those covered categories. Both laws restrict ownership tied to particular foreign domiciles or governments.
Both statutes vest enforcement authority with state officials (Florida and Texas attorneys general or similar offices) and provide civil penalties, registration/divestiture remedies, and other remedial tools intended to compel compliance. These enforcement provisions are precisely the kinds of features that create concrete enforcement risk (and therefore standing) for would-be purchasers and intermediaries.
Important differences:
Florida’s SB 264 contains provisions that vary by location (for example, restrictions tied to proximity to military installations and certain critical infrastructure zones), while Texas’s SB 17, which became effective on September 1, 2025, is framed more broadly to bar or restrict acquisitions of most types of Texas real property (residential, commercial, agricultural, and certain resource rights) by persons or entities tied to designated countries. The practical effect is that Florida’s law can be more targeted by location, whereas Texas’s law is broader in property type.
Exemptions and definitional differences:
The statutes differ in their exemptions (for example, how they treat dual citizens, lawful permanent residents, and certain visa holders) and in how they define “domicile” and “foreign principal.” Those definitional differences matter enormously at the case-by-case level and will affect which clients are covered and who may challenge the law. Parties challenging the laws will focus on these statutory definitions when arguing standing and on the merits.
Conclusion
If you or your company are planning to purchase property—or already hold real estate—in Florida, Texas, or other states with similar legislation, it’s important to act carefully and proactively.
1. Know your legal status: These laws distinguish between U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, visa holders, and foreign-domiciled persons. A change in immigration status, such as obtaining a green card, could change your exposure under the law.
2. Review corporate ownership structures: If a company has Chinese shareholders or directors, consult legal counsel to evaluate whether the business might be considered a “foreign principal.” Even minority ownership could trigger compliance obligations.
3. Prepare for registration or disclosure: Both Florida and Texas laws require affidavits or registration filings for covered transactions. Ensure that your real-estate agents, title companies, and closing attorneys understand these requirements.
4. Be cautious with timing: Ongoing litigation could lead to injunctions, amendments, or new enforcement guidance. Consult with legal counsel to determine if it is advisable or feasible to make a major purchase of real property at this time.
5. Stay informed: Reputable news outlets and your law firm’s client alerts are the best sources for reliable updates. Avoid misinformation circulating on social media.
Sources:
“Federal Appeals Court Refuses to Block Discriminatory Florida Housing Law That Targets Chinese Immigrants.” American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union, 4 Nov. 2025, www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-appeals-court-refuses-to-block-discriminatory-florida-housing-law-that-targets-chinese-immigrants.
“Fight against Florida SB 264.” CALDA 华美维权同盟, caldausa.org/stop-florida-sb-264. Accessed 5 Nov. 2025.
Han, Bochen. “US Appeal Court Says Florida Can Ban Chinese Citizens from Property Purchases.” South China Morning Post, 4 Nov. 2025, www.scmp.com/news/us/politics/article/3331544/us-court-says-florida-can-ban-chinese-citizens-buying-property.
Rockers, Weston B. “Texas Tightens Real Property Ownership Rules for Foreign Nationals with SB 17.” The National Law Review, National Law Review, 6 Aug. 2025, natlawreview.com/article/texas-tightens-real-property-ownership-rules-foreign-nationals-sb-17.
Saunders, Jim. “Court Refuses to Block Chinese Property Law.” Florida Realtors, 4 Nov. 2025, www.floridarealtors.org/news-media/news-articles/2025/11/court-refuses-block-chinese-property-law.
