⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit hears Huang versus Paxton, a challenge involving two Chinese citizens who live outside the United States but already own rental properties in Texas. Huang lives in Shanghai, and Dai lives in New Zealand. They say they want to buy additional Texas property, but a new state law stands in their way. That law, Senate Bill seventeen, restricts real estate acquisitions by certain foreign individuals and entities. The owners sued the Texas attorney general, seeking to prevent enforcement against their proposed purchases. Their complaint describes existing investments and plans to acquire more property; it is not an account of a completed prosecution under this law. They asked for a preliminary injunction, meaning temporary protection while the litigation proceeds. In the ruling under review, the district court refused that protection and dismissed their claims. It concluded that their future purchase plans did not establish a present injury and rejected their reliance on constitutional rights while living abroad. A third plaintiff's claims were left pending, so that ruling did not end the lawsuit for everyone. Huang and Dai are appealing the refusal of interim relief. Before the judges can reach the broader dispute over property restrictions, several threshold questions are in the way. First, standing: have these owners shown a concrete personal injury, or only an uncertain future transaction? Second, can they bring this kind of pre-enforcement suit against the attorney general? And how do the constitutional protections they invoke apply to people living abroad who have property connections here? The owners will argue that their purchase plans and existing connections make the dispute real; the state will argue that the plans are too tentative and that their legal theories do not support relief. Listen for the difference between deciding who can sue and deciding whether the property restrictions themselves are valid.

Huang v. Paxton (No. 25-51034) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued November 2, 2026.