WEEKLY ROUNDUP
Fight continues over property law
TALLAHASSEE — Legal wrangling over a new Florida law that restricts people from China from owning property in the state continued this week, as attorneys representing four Chinese people and a real-estate brokerage launched an appeal of a federal judge’s ruling.
The attorneys filed a notice that is a first step in asking the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor, who rejected issuing a preliminary injunction against the law.
The plaintiffs contend the law violates equal-protection rights and the federal Fair Housing Act.
“Florida’s law legitimizes and expands housing discrimination, in violation of both the Constitution and the Fair Housing Act,” Ashley Gorski, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberty Union’s National Security Project and a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said after Winsor’s Aug. 17 ruling.
The notice filed this week did not detail arguments the plaintiffs will make at the Atlanta-based appeals court.
The overall law (SB 264), approved by the Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis this spring, affects people from what Florida calls “foreign countries of concern.” Those nations are China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria.
But the lawsuit focuses on part of the measure that specifically puts restrictions on people from China who are not U.S. citizens or permanent U.S. residents. That part of the law prohibits people “domiciled” in China from purchasing property in Florida, with some exceptions. Such people 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 non-tourist visas.
In denying an injunction, Winsor wrote that the plaintiffs had not “shown a substantial likelihood of success” on the issues in the case. The judge, an appointee of former president Donald Trump, cited U.S. Supreme Court precedents that he said “held that states could deny aliens ownership interests in land within their respective borders absent an arbitrary or unreasonable basis.”
Winsor also wrote that the law is “facially neutral as to race and national origin.”
“It would apply to a person of Chinese descent domiciled in China the same way it would apply to a person not of Chinese descent domiciled in China. And its application would never turn on a person’s race,” the judge’s order said.
But during a July hearing, Gorski told Winsor the state has relied on “pernicious stereotypes” to conflate people from China with the Chinese government.
A LEVEL PAST
‘LOCAL’
As a larger debate continues over attempts to remove or restrict access to books in schools, state education officials on Wednesday approved a rule that could help set the stage for special magistrates to hear disputes about issues such as parents’ objections to school-library books.
Special magistrates could be administrative law judges or people appointed by the state education commissioner who have at least five years of administrative law experience.
Paul Burns, chancellor of the state Department of Education’s Division of K-12 Schools, said during a meeting of the State Board of Education that the special magistrate process would be used “if a dispute could not be resolved locally.”
The rule includes laying out a process for parents to request a special magistrate “to determine whether a school district properly considered a parental objection” to materials in classrooms or school libraries.
To get a special magistrate involved, parents would have to fill out request forms and demonstrate that objections were first filed with their local school boards. Parents also would have to prove that “the school board has either ruled on the objection or has failed to timely process the objection” and describe how the district didn’t properly establish or follow policies to resolve the objection.
Special magistrates would issue recommendations about “whether a parent has demonstrated that the school district has failed to create an adequate policy” or a district “has materially failed to follow that policy.” The recommendations would go to the state education board.
State Board of Education Chairman Ben Gibson said disputes over library and classroom materials should be solved at the local level.
“I think the point here with this rule is that we want these decisions to be made locally. We want these decisions to be made in consultation with the parents, the teachers, the superintendent and the school board,” Gibson said before the rule was approved.
But critics described the rule as one-sided, favoring people who have requested that materials be removed from classrooms or libraries.
Amy Perwien, an opponent of the rule, said she is a parent of public-school students and that her “parental rights are being trampled by lone book objectors who may not even have children in our public schools.”
“This law refers to a parent disagreeing with a school board’s decision. However, the Department of Education has written a rule that only allows the book objector to file an appeal. The proposed rule skews the appeal process to those who have viewpoints based in … limiting speech,” Perwien said.
The rule stems from a controversial new law (HB 1069), which, in part, expanded a prohibition on instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools
RESTROOM RULE RATIFIED
The state education board this week also approved a separate rule that requires Florida public colleges to update policies on restrooms and changing rooms to have separate facilities “based on biological sex” at birth.
The rule, which applies to the 28 schools in the state college system, stems from a law (HB 1521) signed by DeSantis in May — which supporters dubbed the “Safety in Private Spaces Act” but LGBTQ-rights advocates labeled as discriminatory.
Under the rule, college restrooms and changing facilities will have to be “designated for exclusive use by males or females,” or unisex restrooms or changing facilities will have to be available. The requirements will apply to “all facilities on all campuses” including campus housing.
The measure calls for colleges to establish disciplinary procedures for administrators and instructional employees who violate the rule. The disciplinary actions could include verbal warnings, written reprimands, suspensions without pay and termination. The rule requires that a second violation “must result in a termination.”
STORY OF THE WEEK: A battle about a new Florida law that restricts people from China from owning property in the state is headed to a federal appeals court.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK: “These threats of bathroom investigations, forced firing of personnel, and restrictions on dormitories in the Florida College System will only worsen the current culture of fear and intimidation against the transgender community.” — former state Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, senior policy adviser for Equality Florida.