Civil Rights, Legal Groups Target Chinese Land Ownership Law
Attorneys for the Chinese plaintiffs contend the law, which will take effect July 1, violates constitutional equal-protection and due-process rights and laws, such as the federal Fair Housing Act.
June 15, 2023 at 03:10 PM
4 minute read
Saying such laws are "stains on American history," a coalition of civil-rights and legal groups across the country are trying to bolster a challenge to a new Florida law that restricts people from China owning property in the state.
U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor on Wednesday approved a request from the groups to file a friend-of-the-court brief backing a lawsuit filed by four Chinese people and a real-estate brokerage that serves Chinese clients.
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the law (SB 264) last month and are seeking a preliminary injunction. Winsor scheduled a hearing July 18 on the preliminary injunction request, with the state filing arguments by July 3.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs contend the law, which will take effect July 1, violates constitutional equal-protection and due-process rights and laws such as the federal Fair Housing Act.
In the friend-of-the-court brief, the civil-rights and legal groups likened the law to efforts dating back more than a century to restrict Asians from owning land. They said courts rejected the laws, such as in a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court ruling about a California law.
"Florida's law functionally legalizes discrimination against Asian persons based on anti-Asian rhetoric employing stereotypes and fearmongering," the friend-of-the-court brief said. "Coming at a time where anti-Asian sentiments and rhetoric are rising across the nation, the invidious effect of the law is to sanction discrimination against Asian persons. It is patently unconstitutional."
But in signing the bill and two other measures May 8, Gov. Ron DeSantis said the legislation was designed to curb the influence of the Chinese Communist Party in Florida.
"They have established a position of economic might, of industrial hegemony, and their military is far stronger today than it was 20 or 25 years ago," DeSantis said during a bill-signing event in Brooksville "They have a leader who's very ideological and is intent on expanding CCP [Chinese Communist Party] influence, not just in their region but even around the globe."
The land-related bill partly focuses on people from what are known as "foreign countries of concern" — China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria. It includes restrictions on such things as owning agricultural land and property near military bases by people who are from those countries and are not citizens or permanent residents of the United States.
But the law also more specifically targets people from China who are not citizens or permanent U.S. residents.
It would prevent them from purchasing property in Florida, with some exceptions. For example, they each would be allowed to purchase one residential property up to two acres if the property is not within five miles of a military base and they have nontourist visas.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit have such things as work and student visas. One is seeking asylum in the United States, according to the lawsuit.
Examples of the numerous groups filing the friend-of-the court brief are the Center for Immigration Law, Policy and Justice at Rutgers Law School; the Aoki Center for Critical Race and Nation Studies at the University of California, Davis; the Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law at New York University School of Law; the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Tampa Bay; the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association; the South Asian Bar Association of North America; and the Japanese American Citizens League.
"The fundamental factual and legal flaw embraced by the law and the defendants is the assumption that all or many non-United States citizens or permanent residents domiciled in China are agents of the Chinese Communist Party and are controlling land on its behalf," the brief said. "This unsupportable generalization is identical to that levied against Japanese Americans during World War II. The law targets Chinese persons based on their national origin alone, with neither evidence of ties to the Chinese Communist Party nor other particularized national security threat."
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250