Wang v. Paxton

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

No. 25-20354

December 11, 2025

____________

Lyle W. Cayce

Peng Wang, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Ken Paxton, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas,

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:25-CV-3103

______________________________

Before Wiener, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge:

Texas’s Senate Bill 17 prohibits individuals domiciled in designated

countries, including China, from acquiring various property interests in

Texas. Plaintiff Peng Wang argues that law is unconstitutional. But Wang has

lived in Texas for sixteen years, attends school in Texas, and intends to obtain

a job and remain in Texas after graduation—so he is not domiciled in China.

Thus, we affirm the district court’s holding that Wang lacks standing to

challenge Senate Bill 17.

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-20354

I

A

Senate Bill 17 (“SB 17”) regulates the acquisition of real estate in

Texas by certain foreign individuals and entities from “designated

countr[ies].” Tex. Prop. Code § 5.251. Designated countries include

those identified by the United States Director of National Intelligence as

posing “a risk to the national security of the United States.” Id.

§ 5.251(3)(A). That list includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

SB 17 then declares that certain individuals who are “domiciled in a

designated country” “may not purchase or otherwise acquire an interest in

real property” in Texas. Id. § 5.253. The statute also defines what it means

for a person to be “domiciled”: “[H]aving established a place as an

individual’s true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence to

which the individual intends to return whenever absent.” Id. § 5.251(4). So,

adding that all up, individuals who have a “true, fixed, and permanent home

and principal residence” in a designated country to which they intend to

return whenever absent cannot acquire various real estate interests in Texas. 1

As to enforcement, SB 17 directs the Attorney General to “establish

procedures to examine a purchase or acquisition of an interest in real

property and determine whether an investigation of a possible violation of

this subchapter is warranted.” Id. § 5.255(a). Upon finding a violation of SB

_____________________

1

SB 17 also bans other classes of individuals and entities from purchasing property

in Texas. See Tex. Prop. Code §§ 5.253(1)–(3). It further proscribes certain citizens

and political leaders of designated countries from purchasing property. Id. §§ 5.253(4)(B)–

(E).

2

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-20354

17, the Attorney General then “may refer the matter to the appropriate local,

state, or federal law enforcement agency.” Id. § 5.255(c)(2).

B

Plaintiff Peng Wang is a Chinese citizen. But Wang has lived in Texas

for the past sixteen years and currently holds an F-1 student visa. With that

visa, Wang is pursuing a Master of Divinity in Fort Worth. He “expect[s] to

graduate in late 2026 or early 2027” and then “hope[s] to work as a worship

pastor at a local church.” ROA.66. Wang also has “built” his “social

network” in Texas and “plays instruments at several local orchestras as well

as lead[s] Sunday worship service at a local church.” ROA.66. He “wish[es]

to continue renting an apartment in the greater Fort Worth-Dallas area to

finish [his] degree and seek employment opportunities to become a pastor.”

ROA.67. As Wang put it, “I have always believed that the United States is

the land of opportunity and equality, and everyone has a chance to realize the

American Dream.” ROA.68.

Wang, along with two other plaintiffs, sought a pre-enforcement

injunction against all applications of the state law. The district court

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked

standing because they weren’t domiciled in China. The court based its

conclusion on “the duration of [the plaintiffs’] continual residence in Texas

and stated intention to remain here.” ROA.266. The court also found that

the plaintiffs did not face a substantial threat of future enforcement. The

court reached this holding based on the Attorney General’s repeated, in-

court statements that SB 17 “does not” apply and “cannot be applied” to

the plaintiffs. ROA.267.

3

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-20354

Wang and a second plaintiff then sought an injunction pending appeal,

which this court denied. 2 See ECF No. 44. That second plaintiff has since

voluntarily dismissed her appeal. See ECF No. 59. Wang thus is the only

remaining plaintiff. 3 Our review is de novo. Lutostanski v. Brown, 88 F.4th

582, 585 (5th Cir. 2023).

II

To have standing to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must make three

showings: that he has suffered an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and

actual or imminent”; that the defendant likely caused the injury; and that

judicial relief would likely redress the injury. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,

594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021). Only the first requirement is at issue here.

For a pre-enforcement challenge, the Supreme Court has announced

a three-part test to show an injury: that the plaintiff “inten[ds] to engage in a

course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest”; that his

intended conduct is “arguably proscribed by the statute”; and that the threat

of future enforcement of the statute against the plaintiff is “substantial.”

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 161, 162, 164 (2014)

(quotations omitted). For each showing, a plaintiff must come forward “with

the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the

litigation.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).

We hold Wang lacks standing because he fails to allege an injury-in-

fact. That’s for two independent reasons. The first reason (A) is that SB 17

_____________________

2

The third plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her case because she “believed that

assurances in the briefing of Defendant Ken Paxton established that she faced no threat of

prosecution under” SB 17. ROA.227.

3

Counsel for plaintiffs has nonetheless filed another lawsuit with three new

plaintiffs challenging SB 17. See Huang v. Paxton, No. 1:25-cv-01509-ADA (W.D. Tex.).

That litigation remains pending in the district court.

4

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-20354

does not arguably proscribe Wang’s conduct because he has failed to allege

that he is domiciled in China. And the second reason (B) is that Wang has

not alleged a substantial threat of future enforcement by the Attorney

General.

A

Wang is not domiciled in China. And his counterarguments are

unpersuasive.

1

Start with SB 17’s definition of “domiciled.” Tex. Prop. Code

§ 5.251(4). Under the statute, a person is domiciled where he has

“established a place as [his] true, fixed, and permanent home and principal

residence to which [he] intends to return whenever absent.” Ibid. Under this

standard, Wang is not domiciled in China.

To begin, China is not Wang’s permanent home: He has lived in

Texas for sixteen years and intends to stay in Texas. Specifically, he hopes to

“continue renting an apartment in the greater Fort Worth-Dallas area” and

“seek employment opportunities to become a pastor.” ROA.67. Thus, Wang

does not “intend[] to return” to China after his current absence. See Tex.

Prop. Code § 5.251(4). Indeed, Wang’s pleadings lack any sort of

affirmative statement whatsoever that he intends to return to China—at all,

at any time in his life, ever. In fact, counsel at oral argument could not even

provide a possible address anywhere in China at which Wang has ever lived

or intends to live. See Oral Argument at 6:33–6:44. Without any affirmative

intent to make China his fixed, permanent home, Wang has not alleged that

he is domiciled there under the plain text of SB 17.

2

Wang’s counterarguments do not change the analysis.

5

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-20354

First, Wang cites his F-1 student visa and argues that his visa status

prevents him from establishing a domicile in the United States. To obtain an

F-1 visa, individuals must attest that they “intend” and are able to “depart

[the United States] upon termination of student status.” 22 C.F.R.

§ 41.61(b)(iv). Wang’s argument, then, is that his visa requires him to leave

the United States when it expires, so he can’t be domiciled here.

That may be true, but it is irrelevant. SB 17 only applies to Wang if he

is domiciled in China. That Wang’s visa requires him to leave the United

States upon expiration says nothing about his intentions to return to China.

He may move to Bolivia. He may go to Botswana. He may travel to Berlin.

But as Wang acknowledged in his motion for a preliminary injunction, he has

“no real plans to return to China.” ROA.85; see also Oral Argument at 7:40–

7:53 (Wang’s attorney having no response when asked about Wang’s plans

after his visa expires). So, all we are left with is Wang’s allegation that, upon

graduation, he plans to “continue renting an apartment in the greater Fort

Worth-Dallas area” and “seek employment opportunities to become a

pastor.” ROA.67. That is not an intent to return to China. 4

Second, Wang cites to other snippets of Texas law that purport to

affect whether he is domiciled in China, including the Texas Education Code,

Texas Administrative Code, and Texas Attorney General opinions from 1984

and 1985. But how other statutes have variously defined domicile is as

relevant here as the price of tea in China. After all, “[i]n law as in life, . . . the

_____________________

4

One of our sister circuits recently found that a Chinese citizen who owned a home

in Florida was “arguably domiciled” in China for the purposes of a Florida law similar to

SB 17. See Shen v. Comm’r, Fla. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs., 158 F.4th 1227, 1246

(11th Cir. 2025). But that case is inapposite here. For one, Florida’s law did not define

domicile like Texas’s does. See id. at 1242–43. What’s more, the Shen plaintiff did “not

express[] an intention to remain indefinitely in Florida.” Id. at 1246. Thus, nothing in our

analysis conflicts with Shen.

6

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-20354

same words, placed in different contexts, sometimes mean different things.”

Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528, 537 (2015). SB 17 provides a clear

definition of domicile—and Wang does not meet it.

What’s more, even if these other sources were relevant, none of them

help Wang’s case. Wang cites a pair of 1980s Texas Attorney General

opinions for the proposition that immigrants on F-1 visas cannot establish

residency in Texas for tuition purposes. See Blue Br. at 18 (citing Tex. Att’y

Gen. Op. No. JM-241 (1984) and Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-309 (1985)).

But what Wang’s hypothetical tuition bill would have been in the 1980s has

nothing to do with whether Wang is domiciled in China under the terms of

SB 17. Further, the Texas statute that these opinions interpreted did not

even use the word “domicile,” let alone did they use the word “domicile”

as it is used in SB 17. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-241, at *1 (quoting

Tex. Educ. Code § 54.057). And, in any event, the statute at issue in those

opinions has since been repealed. See Act of May 25, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S.,

ch. 888, § 3, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3000, 3001. So, what the Texas Attorney

General said over four decades ago about a different question, with a different

statute, and different text, cannot affect the plain meaning of domicile in SB

17.

Third, Wang contends that his interpretation of domicile is at least

“arguable,” so he has therefore suffered an injury. See Driehaus, 573 U.S. at

162. He also asks that this court certify the meaning of domicile under SB 17

to the Texas Supreme Court if we have any doubt. Both arguments fail for

the same reason: Wang clearly is not domiciled in China. And Wang’s

argument does not meet the certification standard in any event. See Stanford

ex rel. Phillips v. Brandon Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., L.L.C., No. 24-60509, 2025

U.S. App. LEXIS 30403, at *49–50 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 2025) (Oldham, J.,

dissenting).

7

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-20354

In short, Wang is asking this court to find that his true, fixed, and

permanent home and place to which he intends to return is an unknown place

somewhere in China at which he has never lived and to which he has no

intention to ever return. We refuse the invitation.

B

Wang also lacks standing to bring this pre-enforcement challenge for

another reason: He has not alleged a credible threat of enforcement of SB 17

against him. And his counterarguments are unpersuasive.

1

To show an injury in the pre-enforcement context, Wang must show

that “the threat of future enforcement of [SB 17] is substantial.” Nat’l Press

Photographers Ass’n v. McCraw, 90 F.4th 770, 782 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub

nom., Nat’l Press Photographers Ass’n v. Higgins, 145 S. Ct. 140 (2024)

(quotation omitted). Here, Wang cannot make that showing because the

Attorney General has repeatedly stated that SB 17 “does not” apply and

“cannot be applied” to Wang. See ROA.262, 267; see also ROA.301–02, 334.

By the Attorney General’s own in-court admissions, Wang faces no threat of

enforcement.

Wang also has not pointed to a single step that the Attorney General

has taken to enforce SB 17, which went into effect on September 1, 2025.

And before officials may enforce SB 17, the Attorney General must

“establish procedures to examine a purchase or acquisition of an interest in

real property and determine whether an investigation of a possible

violation . . . is warranted.” Tex. Prop. Code § 5.255(a). So, given the

Attorney General is himself in charge of setting procedures for potential

prosecution and has maintained that the statute does not apply to Wang,

there is no threat that anyone will enforce SB 17 against Wang.

8

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-20354

Our credible-threat precedents are not to the contrary. For example,

in Institute for Free Speech v. Johnson, the Texas Ethics Commission had

issued an advisory opinion stating that the challenger’s conduct fell within

the “ambit” of the challenged law. 148 F.4th 318, 325 (5th Cir. 2025). And

the Commission did not disavow potential enforcement in the litigation. Id.

at 329. Or take La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 151 F.4th 273 (5th Cir.

2025). There, state witnesses testified that a challenged provision applied to

services provided by the plaintiff. Id. at 289; cf. Babbitt v. United Farm

Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 302 (1979) (allowing appellants to

challenge statute because, among other reasons, “the State ha[d] not

disavowed any intention of invoking the criminal penalty provision” against

them).

Here, by contrast, the Attorney General has repeatedly disavowed

applying the statute to Wang. And Wang cannot cite a single case where a

court has found a credible threat of enforcement when the relevant official

has expressly disavowed enforcement.

2

Rather, Wang argues that in any pre-enforcement challenge, courts

may “assume” a credible threat of prosecution absent “contrary evidence.”

Blue Br. at 25 (quoting Turtle Island Foods, S.P.C. v. Strain, 65 F.4th 211, 218

(5th Cir. 2023)). But that is not the law.

Plaintiffs enjoy a presumption of enforcement only in the First

Amendment context. On this point, our court has been explicit: “Unlike in

other constitutional contexts, in the speech context, we may assume a

substantial threat of future enforcement.” Nat’l Press, 90 F.4th at 782

(quotation omitted); see also Woodlands Pride, Inc. v. Paxton, 157 F.4th 775,

786 (5th Cir. 2025) (“In pre-enforcement First Amendment

challenges . . . we assume a credible threat of prosecution.” (quotation

9

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-20354

omitted)). Indeed, the very case that Wang relies on also declares that this

presumption applies only to First Amendment challenges. See Turtle Island,

65 F.4th at 218 (“When we face a pre-enforcement challenge to recently

enacted . . . statutes that facially restrict expressive activity,” we “will

assume a credible threat of prosecution in the absence of compelling contrary

evidence.” (quotation omitted)).

That this presumption is limited to the First Amendment is consistent

with Supreme Court precedent. The Court told us that, in the context of the

Free Speech Clause, “chilled speech or self-censorship is an injury sufficient

to confer standing.” Barilla v. City of Houston, 13 F.4th 427, 431 (5th Cir.

2021). And that chilling effect “may derive from the fact of the prosecution,

unaffected by the prospects of its success or failure.” Dombrowski v. Pfister,

380 U.S. 479, 487 (1965); see also Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n, 484 U.S.

383, 393 (1988) (stating that, in the First Amendment context, “the alleged

danger of [the] statute is, in large measure, one of self-censorship”). But the

Supreme Court has never announced an equivalent chilling effect when

plaintiffs allege that a statute violates the Equal Protection or Supremacy

Clauses. Thus, an alleged First Amendment injury uniquely lends itself to the

enforcement presumption under hoary Court precedent.

Wang next responds that the meaning of Article III’s “Case or

Controversy” requirement cannot change depending on the injury. But that

is precisely how standing works. After all, standing “often turns on the nature

and source of the claim asserted.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975).

So, the fact that the required showing depends on the alleged injury is little

surprise; the standard explicated in First Amendment cases simply does not

apply here.

Finally, Wang argues that limiting the presumption of enforcement to

the First Amendment context “will create a circuit split.” Gray Br. at 21–22.

10

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-20354

But the Fifth Circuit has already held as much, so holding in the Attorney

General’s favor breaks no new ground. See Nat’l Press, 90 F.4th at 782.

What’s more, there is no split. Some circuits have said that “a court

presumes that a legislature enacts a statute with the intent that it be

enforced.” Bryant v. Woodall, 1 F.4th 280, 286 (4th Cir. 2021), as amended

(June 23, 2021). But even then, the Bryant court looked to the fact that no

defendant had officially disavowed enforcement. See id. at 287 n.1, 288–89

(concluding that defendants’ “[u]nofficial and non-binding statements” did

not change the calculus, especially when two other defendants had “made no

representations” at all). Here, by contrast, the Attorney General has made

repeated in-court statements renouncing enforcement. Thus, declining to

find a credible threat of enforcement here does not create a circuit split.

Wang next posits that other law enforcement officials could prosecute

him. But Wang hasn’t sued any of those officials, so this argument does not

apply to the Attorney General.

As to possible enforcement by future attorneys general, the Attorney

General is entitled to the presumption of good faith. The Attorney General

has said that he will not prosecute Wang, and this court takes him at his word.

See Ross v. Reed, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 482, 486 (1816) (“It is a general principle

to presume that public officers act correctly until the contrary be shown.”);

Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Tex., 560 F.3d 316, 325 (5th Cir. 2009)

(“[G]overnment actors in their sovereign capacity and in the exercise of their

official duties are accorded a presumption of good faith.”); United States v.

Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (declaring that the “presumption of

regularity” applies absent “clear evidence to the contrary”).

Wang’s case cites are unavailing. True, the Court in Stenberg v.

Carhart declined to accept the state attorney general’s “narrowing

interpretation” of a state statute. 530 U.S. 914, 940 (2000). But the Court

11

Case: 25-20354 Document: 78-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-20354

merely declined to give the attorney general’s interpretation “controlling

weight.” Ibid. And the Stenberg Court made clear that “[r]egardless” of how

much weight was given to the Attorney General’s interpretation, his view

“conflict[ed] with the statutory language.” Id. at 942. Here, by contrast, the

best reading of the definition of domicile accords with that of the Texas

Attorney General, and the Attorney General has said he will not apply the

statute against Wang.

Further, Wang cites to language in FBI v. Fikre. See Gray Br. at 16

(citing 601 U.S. 234, 241 (2024)). But that case was about how the

government’s voluntary cessation affected mootness. Fikre, 601 U.S. at 236.

And in the mootness context, the government defendant has the burden to

show the challenged conduct will not resume. Id. at 241. Here, however, the

plaintiff must establish standing.

In sum, Wang cannot show a credible threat of enforcement and

therefore lacks an injury. 5

* * *

“Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist,

the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and

dismissing the cause.” Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 (1868).

Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of this case.

_____________________

5

Because we conclude that Wang has suffered no injury, we need not reach the

Attorney General’s arguments about traceability and sovereign immunity.

12