The Eighth Circuit is considering whether to lift an injunction that keeps Arkansas from enforcing its ban on certain foreign-controlled crypto mining operations
Arkansas wanted to keep certain foreign-controlled companies out of its Bitcoin mining industry. For now, the federal courts are keeping that plan on the shelf.
The state’s restrictions on foreign ownership of digital asset mining operations remain blocked. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is deciding whether that block should stay in place.
The fight centers on two state laws: Act 636 from 2023 and Act 174 from 2024. Together, they bar businesses controlled by foreign parties tied to countries on the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations list from holding interests in local digital asset mining enterprises.
Act 174 took effect in May 2024. It specifically prohibits foreign-party-controlled businesses from acquiring interests in digital asset mining operations.
The challenge came from Jones Eagle LLC, a company run by Qimin “Jimmy” Chen. Chen is a naturalized US citizen who was born in China. His company argues the Arkansas laws are preempted by federal law covering foreign affairs and foreign investment.
Jones Eagle won the early rounds. Federal District Judge Kristine G. Baker issued a temporary restraining order in November 2024. She followed it with a preliminary injunction in December 2024.
The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims against the restrictions. It also pointed to the risk of irreparable harm tied to investigations targeting foreign-owned entities.
Daily. Free. Join 34,000+ readers across crypto, finance, and policy.
The injunction was later expanded in April 2025. Arkansas officials then took the matter up to the Eighth Circuit, asking the appeals court to vacate the lower court’s order.
The Eighth Circuit heard arguments on January 14-15, 2026, and again on October 20, 2026. Following that second session, the court has been weighing the state’s request. It has not issued a final determination on the injunction.
Arkansas argues the laws are about land use, a classic area of state authority, and that the laws align with federal national security policy rather than contradicting it.
Foreign ownership is not the only front. Jones Eagle has also been caught up in disputes over local noise rules. Shortly after a federal injunction was secured against local noise ordinances, Jones Eagle faced a $280,000 penalty order.
The most direct stakes fall on mining companies with foreign ties. If the Eighth Circuit leaves the injunction in place, operators like Jones Eagle can keep running while the underlying case proceeds.
If the appeals court sides with Arkansas, the state could begin enforcing its restrictions. Other states considering similar measures would have a roadmap, and potentially a precedent, to point to.
The legal arguments will likely turn on characterization. Arkansas says it is regulating land. Jones Eagle says the state is conducting foreign policy. Whichever description the Eighth Circuit accepts will probably decide the outcome.
What to watch next is the Eighth Circuit’s decision on the state’s request to vacate the injunction. That ruling will not end the case, since the preliminary injunction is a placeholder rather than a verdict. It will, however, determine whether Arkansas’s restrictions stay frozen while the litigation continues.