On Thursday, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit against Senate Bill 17, a new law that restricts people with citizenship, permanent residence or political ties to China, Russia, Iran and North Korea from acquiring most types of real estate in Texas, including farmland, homes and commercial property.
[…]
The plaintiff in the case, Peng Wang, is a Chinese citizen who’s lived in Texas for 16 years on a student visa. Wang argued that the law discriminated against him and others like him, making it harder to rent long term or eventually buy a home.
But the appeals court on Wednesday ruled that SB 17 doesn’t apply to Wang at all. To fall under the law, someone must be domiciled in a designated country, meaning that country is their permanent home. The judges noted that Wang considers Texas his home, plans to stay after school and has “no real plans to return to China.”
“Wang is asking this court to find that his true, fixed, and permanent home and place to which he intends to return is an unknown place somewhere in China at which he has never lived and to which he has no intention to ever return,” the ruling read. “We refuse the invitation.”
Because Wang didn’t meet those requirements, the court refused to move forward on the bigger constitutional questions, leaving SB 17 fully in effect.
Justin Sadowsky, legal director at the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance and Wang’s attorney, said he was disappointed in the decision, but believed future legal challenges would be taken against what he described as a “blatantly discriminatory law.”
See here and here for the background. I have to say, with the additional context of this story, I think this was a reasonable decision. If it is as clear as both the district court judge and now the Fifth Circuit say that this law wasn’t intended for people like these plaintiffs, then that’s a positive development, one that I hope would truly constrain Ken Paxton and any future Paxton wannabes. And as noted by attorney Sadowsky, this does not preclude a future challenge by a more suitable plaintiff. Which I hope will happen, because I also do agree that even a narrowed version of this law is still discriminatory, and will almost certainly affect people who are permanent residents like Peng Wang. So, not truly a setback. That’s the hope, anyway.