A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact sections 11-11-70, 40-05-26, 47-01-09, and 47-10.1-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the powers of a board of county commissioners, a board of city commissioners, and a city council regarding development by a foreign country of concern or foreign organization of concern, prohibiting ownership of real property by a foreign country of concern or a foreign organization of concern, and required filings for foreign persons investing in agricultural lands; to repeal section 47-10.1-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to required filings for foreign persons investing in agricultural lands; to provide for a legislative management report; to provide a penalty; to provide a contingent effective date; and to provide an expiration date.

69th Legislative Assembly (2025-26) Introduced by Janne Myrdal and 4 co-sponsors

Bill prohibits foreign countries of concern from owning North Dakota real property and grants local governments development restriction authority; failed in Senate 44-1.

Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 1 nays 44

Legislative bill overview

SB 2337 would prohibit foreign countries of concern and their affiliated organizations from owning real property in North Dakota, and would grant county and city governments authority to restrict development by such entities. The bill also addresses filing requirements for foreign persons investing in agricultural lands and includes provisions for legislative review and penalties for violations.

Why is this important

Foreign land ownership, particularly in agricultural regions, has become a contentious policy issue nationwide due to concerns about food security, national security, and economic control of strategic resources. North Dakota, a major agricultural state, has significant interest in regulating who can own or develop land within its borders, making this a high-stakes issue for local communities and state sovereignty.

Potential points of contention

Definition and scope: The bill references "foreign countries of concern" and "foreign organizations of concern" without clearly defining these terms in the provided text, creating potential ambiguity about which entities are actually restricted and raising due process concerns.

Constitutional questions: Broad restrictions on foreign property ownership may conflict with interstate commerce protections, treaty obligations, or equal protection principles, inviting legal challenges that could prove costly.

Economic impact: Prohibiting foreign investment in real estate could reduce property values, limit development capital, and affect agricultural operations that rely on foreign investment or partnerships.

Implementation complexity: Determining beneficial ownership structures (shell companies, trusts, etc.) to enforce such restrictions presents significant administrative and enforcement challenges for local governments.