The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a Chinese national challenging Texas Senate Bill 17 (SB 17), a law restricting property acquisition by individuals domiciled in certain foreign countries, including China. The court ruled that the plaintiff, Peng Wang, lacked the necessary legal standing to bring his constitutional challenge because he failed to demonstrate he was actually covered by the law or faced a substantial threat of enforcement.
The opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham, focused heavily on the precise definition of “domicile” as laid out in the Texas statute and the specific requirements for a pre-enforcement challenge in federal court.
Understanding Texas Senate Bill 17
SB 17 targets individuals and entities from “designated countries”—those identified by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence as national security risks, which include China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The law specifically prohibits individuals “domiciled in a designated country” from purchasing or acquiring certain real property interests in Texas.
Crucially, the Texas statute defines “domiciled” as having “established a place as an individual’s true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence to which the individual intends to return whenever absent.”
The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, is tasked with establishing procedures to examine potential violations of the act.
The Plaintiff’s Situation
Peng Wang, a Chinese citizen, has lived in Texas for sixteen years and is currently pursuing a Master of Divinity on an F-1 student visa in the Fort Worth area. He intends to graduate soon and hopes to work as a pastor locally, stating he has built his social network in Texas and wishes to remain there to finish his degree and seek employment.
Wang and others filed suit in the Southern District of Texas seeking to stop the enforcement of SB 17, arguing it was unconstitutional. The district court dismissed the case, concluding Wang lacked standing because he was clearly not domiciled in China, based on his long residence and stated intent to stay in Texas.
The Fifth Circuit’s Two-Pronged Standing Decision
To sue in federal court, a plaintiff must show an “injury-in-fact.” For a pre-enforcement challenge like this one, the plaintiff must satisfy three elements: intend to engage in arguably proscribed conduct, show that the conduct is arguably prohibited by the statute, and demonstrate a substantial threat of future enforcement. The Fifth Circuit found Wang failed on the first two points, providing two independent reasons to affirm the dismissal.
Reason 1: Wang is Not “Domiciled” in China
The appellate court rigorously applied the Texas statutory definition of domicile. Judge Oldham noted that Wang has lived in Texas for sixteen years, intends to remain in the Dallas-Fort Worth area after graduation to work as a pastor, and provided no evidence whatsoever that he intends to return to China as his “true, fixed, and permanent home.”
The court dismissed Wang’s argument that his F-1 student visa status—which requires him to attest to an intent to depart the U.S. upon termination of his studies—somehow proves he is domiciled in China. The court found this irrelevant, noting that the visa only requires departure from the U.S.; Wang might move anywhere else in the world, but he has explicitly stated he has “no real plans to return to China.”
The court also swiftly rejected Wang’s attempts to rely on older Texas Attorney General opinions regarding residency for tuition purposes, stating that those opinions dealt with different statutes, different definitions, and were irrelevant to the clear text of SB 17.
In summary, the court concluded that Wang was asking the court to rule that his permanent home was an unknown place in China to which he has no intention of returning—an argument the court refused to accept.
Reason 2: No Substantial Threat of Enforcement
The second major reason for the ruling was Wang’s failure to show a “substantial threat of future enforcement” against him.
The record showed that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had repeatedly stated in court that SB 17 “does not” and “cannot be applied” to Wang. The court found that when the official responsible for enforcement expressly disavows applying the law to a specific plaintiff, there is no credible threat of enforcement.
Wang argued that courts should generally presume enforcement in pre-enforcement challenges unless there is “compelling contrary evidence.” However, the Fifth Circuit clarified that this presumption is generally limited only to First Amendment challenges, where the threat of “chilled speech” creates a unique type of injury. Since Wang’s challenge was based on constitutional claims other than free speech (presumably Equal Protection or Supremacy Clause challenges, though not explicitly detailed in the opinion), the presumption did not apply.
The court also rejected the idea that future Attorneys General might change course, relying on the presumption of good faith for public officers: the current Attorney General’s explicit renunciation of enforcement must be taken as true.
Because Wang failed to establish that he was covered by the statute (not domiciled in China) and failed to show any credible threat of enforcement, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing.