Shen v. Simpson

UPDATE: In November 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs had not shown “standing” to challenge SB 264’s purchase restriction. In doing so, however, the court of appeals clarified that the purchase restriction did not apply to three of the plaintiffs who intended to buy property in Florida. In light of the ruling, the plaintiffs chose to voluntarily dismiss their claims in this case.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, DeHeng Law Offices PC, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, and the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance (CALDA), challenged Florida’s discriminatory property law, SB 264, on behalf of four individual plaintiffs and a Florida real estate brokerage firm that primarily serves clients of Chinese descent.

Signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2023, SB 264 bars people who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and whose “domicile,” or permanent home, is in China, from purchasing property in Florida. (A similar but less restrictive rule applies to domiciliaries of Cuba, Venezuela, and other “countries of concern.”) The sole exception is incredibly narrow: people with non-tourist visas or who have been granted asylum may purchase one residential property under two acres that is not within five miles of any military installation in the state. Notably, there are more than 20 military installations in Florida, many of them within five miles of city centers like Orlando, Miami, and Tallahassee.

Florida’s dangerous law recalls similar efforts over the past century to weaponize false claims of “national security” against Asian immigrants and other marginalized communities. In the early 1900s, states across the country used similar justifications to pass “alien land laws” designed to prohibit Chinese and Japanese immigrants from becoming landowners. These racist policies not only hurt immigrants financially, but also exacerbated violence and discrimination against Asian communities living in the United States. Over time, these laws were struck down by the courts or were repealed by state legislatures because they violated the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees. Nonetheless, Asian Americans have continued to face violence and discriminatory policies—ranging from the World War II incarceration of Japanese Americans in camps to ongoing post-9/11 surveillance.

Frequently Asked Questions about Florida Law SB 264 and Shen v. Simpson

The following discussion is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and legal outcomes vary depending on the specific facts of a case. If you have questions about whether you can purchase real property in Florida, please contact an attorney licensed in Florida for advice regarding your particular situation.

What happened in Shen v. Simpson?

In May 2023, four Chinese citizens who live, work, study, and raise families in Florida, as well as an Orlando-based real estate firm, brought a lawsuit challenging SB 264. The plaintiffs argued that SB 264 codified and expanded housing discrimination against people of Asian descent in violation of the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act. The plaintiffs also argued that SB 264 is preempted by federal law. Specifically, under the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 and its predecessor statutes, the federal government already reviews property purchases by foreign nationals that may implicate national security concerns, and this system of review conflicts with SB 264’s sweeping prohibitions.

In June 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking a federal district court in Florida to block SB 264 while the suit was pending. The district court denied their motion. The plaintiffs appealed that decision; they also asked the Eleventh Circuit to temporarily block enforcement of the law while the appeal was pending.

In February 2024, a panel of Eleventh Circuit judges granted the motion to temporarily block enforcement of SB 264 pending appeal as to two of the plaintiffs, reasoning that the plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that SB 264’s restrictions were preempted by federal law.

In November 2025, a different panel of Eleventh Circuit judges issued a final ruling on the plaintiffs’ appeal. In a split 2-1 decision, this panel allowed SB 264 to remain in effect, though it did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims about the unlawfulness of SB 264’s purchase restriction.

Why did the Eleventh Circuit allow SB 264 to remain in effect?

In November 2025, the federal appeals court ruled that none of the plaintiffs had established “standing” to challenge SB 264’s purchase restriction. In other words, according to the court, none of the plaintiffs showed that their intended transactions would be prohibited by the statute.

Although the individual plaintiffs believed that, under Florida law, there was a substantial risk that they would be deemed “domiciled” in China, the Eleventh Circuit held that three of these plaintiffs are actually domiciled in Florida, as discussed below. Because the court found that these plaintiffs are domiciled in Florida, their intended purchases are not prohibited by SB 264. For that reason, the court did not go on to address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims that SB 264’s purchase restriction is unlawful.

The court found that at least one of the plaintiffs did have standing to challenge other aspects of SB 264 — specifically, its requirements that (1) Chinese domiciliaries with real property in Florida register their property with the state, and (2) all purchasers of real property in Florida sign an affidavit stating that their purchase complies with SB 264. But the Eleventh Circuit ruled that, on the record before it, the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their legal challenges to those requirements.

What is a Chinese “domicile” for the purposes of SB 264?

SB 264’s purchase restrictions hinge largely on one’s “domicile,” or permanent home. The meaning of “domicile” in SB 264 is a question of Florida state law. Because the Eleventh Circuit is a federal court of appeals, it lacks the power to provide a definitive interpretation of the state statute’s terms. However, the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis of the meaning of “domicile” — as a general matter and as applied to the plaintiffs in this suit — may still be instructive.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that, under Florida law, a person’s “domicile” is where the person has “presence plus an intent to make the place one’s home permanently or for an indefinite period.” Shen v. Comm’r, Fla. Dep’t of Ag. & Consumer Servs., 158 F.4th 1227, 1242 (11th Cir. 2025). “This is true even if the person does not have permanent immigration status. . . . Florida law allows noncitizens subject to removal to establish Florida as their domicile.” Id. at 1243. “For domicile, an intent to remain indefinitely is enough, even when a noncitizen’s permission to remain is for a limited period which may or may not be renewed upon its expiration.” Id.

The Court went on to evaluate the domicile of each of the individual plaintiffs:

• The Court ruled that Plaintiff Yifan Shen is domiciled in Florida, not China. It emphasized the following facts: Shen has lived in Florida since 2019; her employer is trying to obtain a permanent labor certification for her; she plans to apply for permanent residency in the United States; and she intends for an Orlando home to be her primary residence. See id. at 1243-44.
• The Court ruled that Plaintiff Zhiming Xu is domiciled in Florida, not China. It emphasized the following facts: Xu entered the United States in 2019 under a tourist visa and has a pending application for political asylum. He has no plans to ever return to China. Since Xu moved to Florida, he purchased one home and entered a contract to buy another. See id. at 1244-45.
• The Court ruled that Plaintiff Yongxin Liu is domiciled in Florida, not China. It emphasized the following facts: Liu is present in the United States under an H1-B work visa and has lived in Florida for years. He owns one residence in Florida and plans to purchase a second property. Although he has not applied for permanent residency, he plans to do so and hopes to remain in the United States. See id.at 1245.
• The Court ruled that, unlike the other individual plaintiffs, Plaintiff Xinxi Wang is at least arguably domiciled in China. Although she currently lives in Florida and owns a home there, “she has only a temporary student visa and, unlike the other individual plaintiffs, she has not expressed an intention to remain indefinitely in Florida.” at 1246.