Argentina’s Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for unlimited foreign purchases of rural land, annulling a judicial measure that had blocked the repeal of the Rural Lands Law.
The court revoked a Federal Court of Appeals of La Plata ruling that had declared unconstitutional article 154 of Necessity and Urgency Decree (DNU) 70/23, promulgated by President Javier Milei.
The decision was signed by the three justices of the court—Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Ricardo Lorenzetti. They dismissed an appeal by the Malvinas Islands Former Combatants Center (CECIM) of La Plata, citing an alleged “lack of active legitimacy” for the ex-soldiers to litigate in the name of national sovereignty. The magistrates clarified in the written ruling that they made no judgment on the merits or on the constitutionality of the norm, pointing only to the absence of a “case or controversy.”
RELATED: U.S. Judge Authorizes Investment Fund’s Embargo on Argentina
The 2011 Rural Lands Law had set a maximum cap of 15% for foreign ownership of agricultural land at the national, provincial and municipal levels, and prevented any single nationality from holding more than 30% of that proportion. With article 154 reactivated, the rural real estate market is fully deregulated.
The ruling coincides with the libertarian Executive’s attempts to modify the property regime. After the initial court halt, the government pushed the Law of Inviolability of Private Property in Congress to limit ownership only to foreign states or governmental entities. The Senate approved it on August 7; it now awaits consideration in the Chamber of Deputies.
COMUNICADO – LA CORTE DECRETÓ QUE LA SOBERANÍA NO ES UN BIEN JURÍDICO Y PUSO A LA ARGENTINA EN VENTA pic.twitter.com/C7yFOoDqc4
— CECIM La Plata (@cecimlaplata) September 29, 2026
In a statement, CECIM denounced the Court for resolving the Executive’s political dilemma to facilitate the handover of territory. “While the people shouted loudly ‘THE HOMELAND IS NOT FOR SALE,’ the Court considered that there is no such thing as a legally protected interest of sovereignty, and rejected our demand to prevent the repeal of the Lands Law,” the organization said. It also questioned the magistrates: “A State that, in 1982, sent us to battle under the argument of defending national sovereignty. Strange consideration that of this Court. We can die in defense of sovereignty, but not go to a court.”
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.