Louisiana lawmakers moved one step closer this week to giving the state power to seize land tied to people from countries the U.S. labels "foreign adversaries" if that property sits within 50 miles of a military base. Senate Bill 200, filed by Sen. Valarie Hodges, would let the state Military Department petition to expropriate immovable property it says is "owned or controlled" by a foreign adversary or an agent of one. Critics warned during a Tuesday hearing that the bill is written so broadly it could sweep in people who live and work in Louisiana lawfully but are not permanent residents.
Committee testimony and reporting indicate the proposal reaches property purchased, leased or controlled "regardless of the date" it was acquired, expanding earlier restrictions that focused only on purchases and leases. As reported by Gambit, Jason Li, a China-born university employee in Louisiana on an H-1B visa, told senators he feared the 50-mile buffer would cover "much of the state" and could treat his family as a security threat. The bill relies on the Commerce Department’s list of foreign adversaries in Cornell Law School, which currently names China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and the Maduro regime.
What the bill would allow
Under SB 200, any immovable property "purchased, leased, possessed, owned, held in interest, or in any manner under the control" of a foreign adversary or its agent that lies within fifty miles of a military base could be expropriated by the state Military Department. The official bill text for the 2026 Regular Session specifies that expropriation may proceed "regardless of the date" the property was acquired and requires the state’s petition to spell out how the property poses a threat to public health and safety, according to the Louisiana Legislature.
The measure would place any property the state acquires under Louisiana’s Relocation Assistance Act and route expropriations through the standard state condemnation process. Supporters frame it as a national security tool aimed at protecting bases and critical infrastructure from potentially hostile foreign influence.
Who critics say would be swept up
Opponents zeroed in on the bill’s definition of "agent of a foreign adversary," which can include individuals who are citizens of a listed country unless they are lawful permanent residents. They argue that this language is broad enough to rope in students, researchers and temporary workers who have followed federal immigration rules.
Li told lawmakers his family could be cast as a threat to "public health and security" and that the 50-mile restriction would cover "much of the state," according to Gambit. Civil-rights advocates at the hearing and in public statements drew parallels to early 20th-century "alien land" laws that targeted Asian immigrants and barred them from owning property.
Legal questions and national context
Legal analysts warn SB 200 could be stepping into a constitutional minefield, especially on federal preemption and equal-protection grounds. A Florida law with similar aims, SB 264, is already under attack in federal court in Shen v. Simpson. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily enjoined enforcement of that statute for some plaintiffs while the case proceeds, according to Justia.
Civil-rights groups say that when states single out specific nationalities in property or housing laws, they invite exactly this sort of costly litigation and constitutional scrutiny. Louisiana’s proposal is already being watched as part of a broader trend of state-level efforts to restrict land ownership or access by citizens of certain countries.
What’s next
SB 200 cleared the Senate Judiciary C Committee and now heads to the full Senate for debate. If both chambers approve it and the governor signs on, it would take effect immediately under the bill’s terms. The digest specifies that the law becomes effective "upon signature by the governor or, if not signed, upon the lapse of time" and authorizes the Military Department to pursue expropriation using Louisiana’s existing condemnation procedures, according to the Louisiana Legislature.
Backers insist the bill is a necessary shield for military installations and key infrastructure. Opponents counter that it risks discrimination against lawful immigrants, invites expensive court battles and, if history is any guide, may not fare well once judges start weighing in.
