A federal judge in Little Rock, Arkansas, has temporarily blocked the state from shutting down a crypto mining company owned by a Chinese-born, naturalized US citizen. The judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) after the company argued the state’s actions were discriminatory.
The Judge’s Ruling
Chief US District Judge Kristine Baker granted the TRO on November 25th. This temporarily prevents Arkansas from enforcing two state laws, Act 636 of 2023 and Act 174 of 2024, aimed at businesses owned by people linked to China or other countries considered US adversaries. The TRO is in effect for 14 days, after which a hearing will be held to consider a preliminary injunction.
Arkansas’s Controversial Laws
Act 636 bans property ownership by companies or individuals connected to the Chinese government, while Act 174 prohibits ownership by entities controlled by those same countries. These laws empower the state agriculture department to investigate and the Attorney General to take action against suspected violators.
The Case Against Jones Eagle LLC
The Arkansas Secretary of Agriculture referred Jones Eagle LLC (formerly Jones Digital LLC) to the Attorney General, citing concerns about potential ties to China based solely on the owner’s origin. Qimin “Jimmy” Chen, the owner, is a naturalized US citizen who immigrated to the US as a child. He controls Jones Eagle through Eagle Asset Holdings Inc.
Despite providing documentation and attempting to meet with the Attorney General’s office to prove his citizenship and the company’s compliance, Chen claims his efforts were ignored. He alleges the investigation was based solely on his name and ethnicity.
The Legal Battle
Jones Eagle LLC sued the state, alleging violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The lawsuit claims the laws violate due process, discriminate based on national origin, and constitute a taking of property without just compensation. Chen’s attorney stated the TRO and the potential preliminary injunction will protect the company while they fight the case in court. They plan to argue the laws are unconstitutional and represent excessive government overreach.
