Argentina's Supreme Court suspends repeal of Milei's land law

Argentina’s Supreme Court temporarily suspended Article 154 of Emergency Decree 70/2023. That article repealed Law 26,737, known as the Ley de Tierras, which limited foreign ownership of rural land. The suspension restored those limits while the legal challenge continues. It matters because the ruling immediately changes how foreign land purchases are regulated, but it does not resolve the larger constitutional dispute.

The challenge came from Árbol de Pie, two Indigenous communities, and former legislator María Magdalena Odarda. They argued that environmental protection and Indigenous rights were involved. The Court cited possible environmental damage and the need to prevent irreparable harm. It also criticised lower courts for leaving the claimants’ requests unanswered.

The decision is not final. A competent judge must still examine standing and the requested injunction. Until then, the 2011 restrictions apply in practice. The Court has not confirmed that the challengers’ legal arguments will ultimately succeed.

Argentina’s Ley de Tierras is the name commonly used for Law 26,737, enacted in 2011. Its core purpose was to limit how much rural land could be owned by foreigners. The national ceiling is 15 percent. The law also sets separate limits at provincial and municipal levels. These rules were designed to keep foreign ownership from becoming too concentrated in particular areas.

The 15 percent figure applies to foreign ownership across Argentina’s rural land. It is not simply a limit on one foreign buyer. The law also includes restrictions operating within provinces and municipalities. The article notes that some districts already exceed the 15-percent limit, according to available data.

Milei’s government removed these restrictions through Emergency Decree 70/2023 after he took office in 2023. Friday’s Supreme Court order provisionally suspended the decree’s repeal of Law 26,737. As a result, the 2011 framework applies again while courts consider the new challenge, without settling the dispute permanently.

Suspending the repeal returns Argentina’s foreign rural land-ownership rules to the status quo under the 2011 law. In practical terms, foreign ownership is again subject to the 15 percent national ceiling, along with separate provincial and municipal limits. This matters for future purchases and for how authorities assess ownership levels while the court proceedings continue.

The mechanism is straightforward. Article 154 of Emergency Decree 70/2023 had repealed Law 26,737. By suspending Article 154’s effects, the Supreme Court temporarily stopped that repeal from operating. The Court described the measure as interim protection linked to possible environmental damage and the need to avoid irreparable harm.

The change is not a final judgment on the decree. A competent judge still must decide whether the claimants have legal standing and whether their injunction request is justified. Until that review, the 2011 restrictions remain the working rules. Congress may also debate the decree’s future on October 15.

The separate challenge focused on interests beyond ownership rules alone. Environmental association Árbol de Pie, two Indigenous communities, and María Magdalena Odarda argued that the repeal affected environmental protection and Indigenous peoples’ rights. Those concerns gave the courts a basis to consider possible harm while the broader legal dispute remains unresolved.

The Supreme Court said the case involved protection against environmental damage. It therefore ordered an interim measure to ensure effective judicial protection and prevent irreparable damage. The Court also criticised lower courts because the claimants’ requests had remained unanswered. Its reasoning stressed that environmental cases require timely judicial responses.

This challenge is separate from the earlier case brought by CECIM, the veterans’ association. The Supreme Court had rejected CECIM as a legitimate plaintiff ten days before Friday’s order. The new case remains preliminary. A lower judge must decide whether these new claimants have legal standing and whether their request for an injunction should be granted.

Foreigners own around five percent of Argentine territory, according to a 2025 report from CONICET’s Land Observatory and the University of Buenos Aires. That national figure is below the 15 percent ceiling established by the 2011 Ley de Tierras. The comparison suggests that foreign ownership nationwide remains under the law’s overall limit.

The national percentage does not tell the whole story. The 2011 law also imposed limits at provincial and municipal levels. The article reports that foreign ownership already exceeds the 15-percent limit in some districts. This shows why local restrictions matter even when the countrywide figure is lower.

The Supreme Court’s provisional suspension restored the 2011 framework while the legal challenge proceeds. The five-percent figure describes existing foreign ownership, not the amount that could legally be purchased in the future. A judge must still assess the claimants’ standing and injunction request. Congress may also consider overturning Milei’s decree in its entirety.

Emergency Decree 70/2023 changed Argentina’s foreign land-ownership rules by repealing Law 26,737, the 2011 Ley de Tierras. The repeal removed the legal basis for the national, provincial, and municipal limits on foreign ownership of rural property. It was part of President Javier Milei’s broader effort to liberalise economic rules after taking office in 2023.

The key mechanism was Article 154 of the decree. Instead of Congress passing a replacement land law, the decree itself repealed the existing law. A lower court later suspended that repeal in March 2024 after a challenge by CECIM. The Supreme Court first restored the decree’s effects, then suspended Article 154 again in the separate environmental case.

The current position is therefore temporary and contested. The 2011 restrictions apply in practice while the latest proceedings continue. Opposition deputies planned a congressional session for October 15 to seek repeal of the decree in full. The government also withdrew proposed legislative changes after lacking enough support.

An interim judicial measure, often called an injunction, is temporary protection ordered before a court reaches a final decision. It preserves the situation or prevents potentially serious harm while judges examine the underlying legal claims. It does not prove that the claimant will eventually win. Its purpose is to make sure a final judgment remains meaningful.

In this case, the Supreme Court suspended Article 154 of Milei’s decree. That temporarily restored the 2011 limits on foreign rural land ownership. The Court said the case involved protection against environmental damage and the need to prevent irreparable harm. It also pointed to the importance of timely judicial responses after lower courts left requests unanswered.

The measure protects the claimants’ opportunity to pursue their case without the repeal operating meanwhile. It is not permanent. A competent judge must still decide whether they have legal standing and whether their injunction request is justified. The underlying dispute about the decree remains open, and the claimants’ arguments have not been finally validated.