AUSTIN (KXAN) — Counsel for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a response Tuesday to a lawsuit brought in September by three Chinese citizens, who want the court to block his office from enforcing a recently enacted state law.
The plaintiffs seek an injunction against Senate Bill 17, state law that took effect at the start of September. It prohibits companies or organizations connected to the governments of designated foreign adversary nations, such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, from owning real estate in Texas or renting a property for a year or more.
It also blocks individuals who meet one of five criteria:
- Individuals domiciled in a designated country;
- Citizens of a designated country domiciled outside of the U.S. or a designated country;
- Citizens of a designated country who are unlawfully living in the U.S.;
- Agents of a designated country; or,
- Members of a designated country’s ruling party.
“[Plaintiffs] will be unable to rent (and therefore continue to live, study, and work) in Texas, and unable to purchase second homes or investment properties,” the lawsuit states. “The law stigmatizes them and their communities, and casts a cloud of suspicion over anyone of Chinese descent who seeks to buy property in Texas.”
The lawsuit names Paxton, in his official capacity, as the sole defendant. He’s represented in the case by Brian Keith Ingram, special counsel at the Texas Office of the Attorney General.
Ingram wrote in his motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue and that Paxton is protected by sovereign immunity.
“The two foreign plaintiffs do not have the right to bring these claims, and the third plaintiff is not adversely affected by the law,” the motion reads. “SB 17 mitigates the influence of hostile foreign governments. The statute draws lines on that basis, not based on race or national origin.”
While the plaintiffs didn’t say in their lawsuit that the law has been enforced against them yet, they allege that since there is an “imminent” threat of enforcement. Ingram argues that imminent threat only grants standing to bring cases involving potential violations of the First Amendment.
“Plaintiffs have pleaded no facts showing that the Attorney General has taken any steps to enforce SB 17, most specifically the domicile provision or the third-party domicile provision, against them or anyone else,” he wrote. “In a previous suit challenging SB 17 … the district court specifically found that the Attorney General had no intention of enforcing the statute against persons similarly situated.”
The ruling in that other case noted that Paxton said there “is no state interest in preventing persons who are legally living in Texas … who possess the desire to continue living and working in Texas in the future from purchasing or leasing real estate.”
“These persons are no threat to the security of Texas or Texans. They are welcome to settle here. Nothing in SB 17 is to the contrary,” states the ruling, quoting Paxton.
However, the prior ruling is for a separate federal court district and isn’t binding on the court hearing the current case.
The motion also talks directly about one of the plaintiffs, who, per their signed declarations filed with the court, is a Chinese citizen with a student visa who lives in Waco. Ingram wrote that the plaintiff is domiciled in the U.S. legally, and thus, SB 17 couldn’t be enforced against them.
As for the two other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the OAG said that they can’t bring their case because they live outside the U.S.
“They do not make any claim to be subject to U.S. laws or the U.S. Constitution. As such, they have no right to bring claims under the U.S. Constitution,” the motion to dismiss states,” They have no right to claim preemption under the Supremacy Clause and no right to claim equal protection under the 14th Amendment.”
The motion also goes on to argue that, even if the plaintiffs could make those claims, they would be unsuccessful in court.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld restrictions on the purchase of land by aliens … ruling that these restrictions are part of the police power reserved to the state when the Constitution was adopted. State restriction on land purchases by some aliens do not violate equal protection so long as they are not ‘arbitrary or unreasonable,'” it states.
A hearing in the lawsuit is scheduled for Nov. 4 at the federal courthouse in Austin.
Want more insights? Join Working Title - our career elevating newsletter and get the future of work delivered weekly.
