“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Four Chinese individuals and a brokerage firm representing them were barred from purchasing land in Florida because they were Chinese. The case is Yifan Shen v Commissioner decided in November 2025.
What happened in this case?
In 2023, claiming that it was “safeguarding national security,” Florida passed SB 264, a law that “prohibited persons who are domiciled in China, and who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents” of the US, from purchasing any real property in Florida. It also required and requiring registration and similar mandates concerning property already owned. Four Chinese individuals and a real estate brokerage filed suit, saying that the law violated their rights under the federal Fair Housing Act, federal law regulating foreign investments in the United States, and the Equal Protection Clause.
What did Trump Eleventh Circuit Judges Robert Luck and Barbara Lagoa decide?
Judge Robert Luck, joined by Jjudge Barbara Lagoa, wrote a 2-1 decision upholding the law banning Chinese individuals from buying property in the state and imposing registration and similar requirements concerning property already owned. In particular, they upheld a district court decision denying the Chinese individuals and their brokerage firm a preliminary injunction preventing the law from going into effect. The judge said that the individuals and the brokerage firm did not have standing to bring the suit and that they were unlikely to succeed on their claims.
What did Clinton Judge Charles Wilson say in dissent?
Clinton nominee Judge Charles Wilson doubted the majority’s standing analysis, but focused primarily on what he called the “dubious” arguments they used to defeat their equal protection and preemption claims. With respect to equal protection, he explained that because of the law’s discrimination based on race and national origin and “more than a half century of precedent,” the law (SB264) had to survive “strict scrutiny” to be upheld. Since Florida had “not even tried to pass’ the strict scrutiny test and show that there was a compelling government interest for the law, he continued, the district court decision should be reversed.
As to preemption, Judge Wilson explained, existing federal law requires careful review of real estate purchases and other transactions by foreign individuals under the federal government’s clear constitutional authority to “regulate foreign commerce,” and SB 264, a state law, “flouts these principles of federalism.” Because the challengers were likely to succeed on their federalism and equal protection claims, Wilson concluded, the decision should have been reversed.
Why is the result harmful ?
The ruling by Trump judges Luck and Lagoa harms the Chinese individuals who brought claims of discrimination against Florida, as well as other Chinese people who live there, and may well encourage other states to pass such legislation. In addition, the majority ruling clearly illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.