Introduction
Restricting Land Sales to Foreign Entities: On May 9, 2025, the Texas House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 17 (SB 17), a measure aimed at restricting land purchases by citizens, companies, and governments from countries deemed national security threats by the United States. The bill, which passed with an 86-59 vote, specifically targets entities from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and grants the governor authority to expand this list.
Proponents argue that SB 17 is a necessary step to protect Texas’s critical infrastructure and natural resources from foreign adversaries. State Rep. Cole Hefner, a Republican from Mount Pleasant and the bill’s House sponsor, stated, “Our adversaries speak loudly and often about their ambitions and motivations to break our country and its citizens. The state of Texas will not allow this to happen.
However, the bill has faced significant opposition from Democratic lawmakers and civil rights advocates, who contend that it revives discriminatory practices and fuels racial hostility, particularly toward Asian communities. State Rep. Gene Wu, the chamber’s only Chinese-American legislator, denounced the measure as racist, stating, “This is a loud and clear message that Asians don’t belong in this country.”
This legislative move raises critical questions about the balance between national security and civil liberties, the extent of state authority in regulating foreign investments, and the potential for unintended consequences affecting immigrant communities.
Legal and Historical Background
Applicable Laws and Statutory Authorities
SB 17 seeks to amend the Texas Property Code to prohibit certain foreign entities from acquiring real property in the state. The bill defines “designated countries” as those identified by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence as national security threats, currently including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. It also grants the Texas governor the authority to add other countries to this list.
The bill stipulates that individuals domiciled in designated countries, as well as companies headquartered or controlled by entities from these countries, are prohibited from purchasing or acquiring title to real property in Texas. Exceptions are made for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and certain visa holders.
Historical Context
The concept of restricting land ownership based on nationality has historical precedents in the United States. In the early 20th century, several states enacted “alien land laws” aimed at preventing Asian immigrants, particularly Japanese nationals, from owning land. These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as Porterfield v. Webb (1923), which validated California’s restrictions on land ownership by “aliens ineligible for citizenship.”
However, these laws have since been widely condemned as discriminatory and unconstitutional. In Oyama v. California (1948), the Supreme Court ruled that California’s alien land laws violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court emphasized that the laws unfairly targeted individuals based on their national origin, setting a precedent for the invalidation of similar statutes.
Relevant Precedent-Setting Court Decisions
In addition to Oyama v. California, other significant cases have addressed the constitutionality of alien land laws. In Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission (1948), the Supreme Court struck down a California law that denied commercial fishing licenses to Japanese immigrants, ruling that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause. These decisions underscore the judiciary’s stance against laws that discriminate based on national origin.
Legal scholars have noted that modern iterations of alien land laws, such as SB 17, may face constitutional challenges. Professor Hiroshi Motomura of UCLA School of Law has stated, “While national security is a legitimate concern, laws that categorically restrict property rights based on national origin are likely to be scrutinized under equal protection principles.”
Case Status and Legal Proceedings
SB 17 has passed both chambers of the Texas Legislature but requires reconciliation between the House and Senate versions before it can be sent to Governor Greg Abbott for signature. The Senate version included visa holders in the ban, while the House version, following amendments, exempts individuals residing in the U.S. legally on temporary work or student visas.
Once reconciled and signed into law, the bill is set to take effect on September 1, 2025. The Texas Attorney General will be responsible for enforcing the law, with violations potentially resulting in fines of $250,000 or more. The bill also allows for the forced divestment of properties acquired in violation of the statute.
Opponents of the bill have indicated that legal challenges are likely, citing concerns over potential violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the Fair Housing Act. Civil rights organizations are preparing to contest the law’s constitutionality in court.
Viewpoints and Commentary
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Democratic lawmakers and civil rights advocates have expressed strong opposition to SB 17, arguing that it revives discriminatory practices and targets immigrant communities. State Rep. Gene Wu criticized the bill as a revival of 19th-century laws targeting Asian immigrants, stating, “This is a loud and clear message that Asians don’t belong in … .”
State Rep. Hubert Vo, a Vietnamese American, shared his personal story, warning that the bill could harm immigrants and refugees pursuing the American dream. He stated, “If SB 17 were law when I came to these shores, I fear that I would not have been able to buy the home that I raised my kids in.”
Advocacy groups argue that the bill stigmatizes law-abiding residents and undermines Texas’s inclusive values. They contend that the legislation could lead to violations of the Fair Housing Act and exacerbate anti-Asian sentiment.
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Supporters of SB 17 argue that the bill is essential for protecting national security interests and safeguarding critical infrastructure. State Rep. Cole Hefner emphasized the need to prevent hostile foreign nations from acquiring Texas land, stating, “If we don’t pass Senate Bill 17 today in the House, we run the very real risk of losing our land, our natural resources and our supply chains to our adversaries.”
Republican Rep. Angie Chen Button, … , acknowledged immigrants’ fears but stressed the importance of national security. She stated, “This is not my motherland, … .”
Some conservative critics, however, argue that the final bill is too weak. Republican Party of Texas Chair Abraham George called the bill “weaker … urged House Republicans to strengthen enforcement mechanisms and broaden its application.
Comparable or Historical Cases
Senate Bill 17 echoes a long history of legislative efforts in the United States that have sought to restrict land ownership based on national origin. Perhaps the most telling historical parallel is the wave of “alien land laws” enacted in the early 20th century, particularly on the West Coast, which prohibited Asian immigrants—especially Japanese nationals—from owning or leasing land. One of the most infamous examples was California’s 1913 Alien Land Law, which barred “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from landownership. These laws were justified at the time under the guise of protecting American agriculture and promoting national security, much like SB 17 today.
The constitutionality of such laws was initially upheld in Porterfield v. Webb (1923), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states had the authority to regulate land ownership within their borders. However, this changed in the post-World War II period. In Oyama v. California (1948), the Court ruled that California’s alien land law violated the Equal Protection Clause, as it unjustly targeted American-born children of Japanese immigrants. Similarly, in Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission (1948), the Court struck down a California law denying fishing licenses to Japanese immigrants, signaling an end to legally sanctioned economic discrimination based on national origin.
Fast forward to the 21st century: Several states have revived similar legal strategies. Florida passed SB 264 in 2023, banning land purchases by Chinese nationals near critical infrastructure and military sites. The law was quickly challenged and partially blocked by federal courts on constitutional grounds. Civil rights groups argued that it violated the Equal Protection Clause and was rooted in racial animus, citing its chilling effect on Asian-American communities.
SB 17 is distinguishable from earlier iterations by including broader national security rationales and offering certain exemptions for legal residents and visa holders. Nevertheless, the core legal question remains: Can a state restrict private property rights on the basis of nationality without running afoul of constitutional protections?
As Professor John Yoo of UC Berkeley notes, “The Constitution permits some regulation of foreign property ownership, but sweeping bans that appear to profile ethnic groups may not survive judicial scrutiny.” Thus, while history provides a legal foundation for such laws, precedent also cautions against policies that may be viewed as discriminatory in practice or purpose.
Policy Implications and Forecasting
If signed into law, SB 17 could mark a turning point in how states approach the intersection of national security and foreign investment. On one hand, the bill offers Texas lawmakers a potent tool to preempt foreign control over strategic assets—particularly near military installations, energy infrastructure, and agricultural reserves. This fits into a broader trend of “economic nationalism” in state legislatures, where property ownership is increasingly viewed through a geopolitical lens.
Yet the policy implications are far from settled. Economically, there is concern that SB 17 may have a chilling effect on foreign investment, not only from the designated nations—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—but also from allies who fear future blacklisting. Real estate, agriculture, and technology sectors could face increased scrutiny, dampening global investment in Texas.
Civil liberties advocates are particularly alarmed by the governor’s discretionary authority to add nations to the restricted list. This provision raises significant questions about executive overreach and the absence of legislative or judicial oversight. According to Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice, “When laws give the executive branch unchecked power to designate enemies and impose restrictions without transparency, it undermines both democratic accountability and constitutional safeguards.”
Socially, SB 17 risks intensifying anti-immigrant sentiment. By singling out nationals from specific countries, the bill may lead to profiling, stigmatization, and real estate discrimination, even among naturalized citizens and lawful visa holders. The Fair Housing Act and Equal Protection Clause will likely be invoked in litigation if enforcement disproportionately affects racial or ethnic groups.
On the federal level, SB 17 may conflict with the Commerce Clause and U.S. treaty obligations. Although states have authority over property laws, the regulation of foreign nationals often falls within the purview of the federal government. Legal experts warn that if challenged, courts will need to assess whether SB 17 impinges on federal prerogatives or creates undue burdens on interstate commerce.
In forecasting future developments, other states may be encouraged by Texas’s initiative. Should the bill survive legal scrutiny, expect similar legislation in politically conservative states. Conversely, a successful legal challenge could set new limits on state power in regulating foreign land ownership, reshaping the balance between security and constitutional freedoms.
Conclusion
SB 17 encapsulates one of the most enduring dilemmas in American governance: the conflict between national security imperatives and constitutional guarantees of equal protection and property rights. While the bill’s supporters argue that it is a rational response to the threats posed by adversarial governments, critics fear that it resurrects the legal and moral failings of prior discriminatory statutes, cloaking xenophobia in the garb of patriotism.
The constitutional fault lines are clear. On the one hand, the state’s police powers grant it authority to regulate property transactions within its jurisdiction. On the other, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, federal supremacy under the Commerce Clause, and long-standing civil rights legislation provide a bulwark against discriminatory practices—intentional or otherwise. The fact that SB 17 grants the Texas governor unilateral power to update the list of banned countries only amplifies constitutional concerns regarding vagueness, executive overreach, and lack of due process.
Both liberal and conservative scholars acknowledge the novelty and risk of this legislative approach. Civil rights experts warn that its implementation may lead to racial profiling and discourage lawful immigrants from engaging in legitimate business transactions. National security analysts counter that unchecked foreign acquisitions, particularly from nations with hostile intent, represent a clear and present danger to American sovereignty and resource control.
This policy moment serves as a microcosm of a larger national reckoning: how to balance openness with caution, liberty with vigilance. As states like Florida and Texas take increasingly aggressive postures, federal courts will likely be called upon to arbitrate the limits of state authority in regulating foreign ownership. Their rulings will determine whether the fears driving SB 17 justify its constitutional trade-offs.
As Professor Aziz Huq of the University of Chicago Law School observes, “Democracy is not only about defending the nation—it’s also about ensuring that defense does not erode the principles we’re trying to protect.”
Looking forward, lawmakers must grapple with difficult questions: How do we distinguish between legitimate security concerns and thinly veiled racial animus? Can states responsibly wield national security justifications without overstepping their constitutional bounds? And most importantly, are we prepared to sacrifice civil liberties to preserve sovereignty, or can both coexist in the law?
For Further Reading
- “In Florida, a Law Barring Chinese Citizens From Buying Land Is Blocked”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/florida-chinese-land-ownership-ban.html - “States Push to Restrict Foreign Ownership of Farmland Over Security Fears”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/states-restrict-foreign-ownership-farmland-6b59b8e2 - “National Security and Foreign Investment: Rethinking the CFIUS Framework”
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/national-security-and-foreign-investment-rethinking-the-cfius-framework/ - “Property Rights and National Origin: Why Blanket Bans on Foreign Land Ownership Are Unjustified”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/property-rights-national-origin-foreign-ownership-bans - “Texas Senate Revives Bill Limiting Land Sales to Citizens of China, Iran, North Korea and Russia”
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/29/texas-senate-foreign-land-ownership-bill/