Argentina’s Supreme Court has reversed a decision made by a lower court on Tuesday, which had prevented the implementation of an article within President Javier Milei’s 2023 mega decree that annulled the country’s Land Law. The law, enacted in 2011, establishes restrictions on the extent of rural land ownership permissible for foreign entities. While the ruling does not explicitly state that the decree repealing the law is constitutional, its practical implications are that the restrictions on foreign ownership of land imposed by the law have been removed. In the ruling, the court’s three members – Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, and Ricardo Lorenzetti – determined that the group of Malvinas War Veterans challenging the repeal lacked the legal standing to pursue the case. Enacted in 2011, the Land Law stipulated that foreign individuals and corporations were restricted to a maximum ownership of 15% of rural land across national, provincial, or municipal jurisdictions. It also established a cap of 1,000 hectares for individual foreign ownership in Argentina’s agricultural core region. The law was among Milei’s targets when he issued DNU 70/23 in December 2023, shortly after assuming office.
The sweeping decree altered or annulled hundreds of laws as a component of the government’s deregulation initiative. Article 154 of the decree repealed the Land Law, thereby eliminating restrictions on foreign ownership of rural land. The provision, however, faced immediate legal challenges from the Center for Malvinas War Veterans in La Plata, known as CECIM. A federal judge initially reinstated the Land Law, and subsequently, the Federal Court of Appeals in La Plata ruled that the pertinent section of the DNU was unconstitutional. In 2024, the government made an appeal to the Supreme Court, which rendered its decision on Tuesday. The court determined that CECIM lacked the necessary legal standing to initiate the case and concluded that there was no qualifying collective legal dispute presented before the court. The justices clarified that their decision “does not constitute a ruling on the constitutional validity of Article 154” and does not encroach upon Congress’s responsibilities.
Nevertheless, with the article now reinstated, foreign individuals, companies, and states are permitted to acquire rural land without the constraints of the 15% national, provincial, and municipal caps or the 1,000-hectare limit in the core agricultural region. With the federal court’s injunction still in effect, the Milei administration attempted to repeal the law via Congress. In August, the ruling party’s bloc proposed a comprehensive private-property reform aimed at completely removing restrictions on foreign ownership. Under pressure from allied lawmakers, the government revised its proposal to increase the limit from 15% to 25%. That compromise likewise did not garner sufficient backing. In response to significant political and social resistance, the government retracted the section concerning foreign ownership from the legislation prior to its Senate vote.
The withdrawal meant that the 15% limit continued to be in effect. Despite the Senate’s rejection of DNU 70/23 in March 2024, the legal framework surrounding presidential emergency decrees stipulates that a DNU can only be repealed by Congress if both the upper and lower houses cast their votes against it. Consequently, the decree continues to be effective unless it is also dismissed by the chamber of deputies. This indicates that, although the congressional rejection is not fully realised, the direct consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision is the abrogation of the Land Law. Progressive legislator Myriam Bregman has urged the Lower House to dismiss DNU 70/23. “The decree must be annulled now,” she asserted, contending that numerous disputes related to the Land Law would subsequently be addressed. If the Chamber of Deputies were to reject the decree, it would consequently lose its legal force. That would eliminate Article 154, reinstating the Land Law, which encompasses its 15% cap on foreign ownership.
