The US Supreme Court heard two cases from Holocaust victims and their survivors who seek to sue Germany and Hungary in American courts to recover millions of dollars in property taken from them during the Nazi era.
One case involved 14 Hungarian Holocaust survivors who want to be compensated for property stolen from them and their families as they were loaded onto trains heading to concentration camps.
The other was brought by the heirs of German Jewish art dealers who say the sale in 1935 of medieval religious artwork known as the Guelph Treasure, now estimated to be worth $250 million, was completed under pressure.
The pieces eventually ended up in Adolf Hitler’s hands and are now on display in a state-run museum in Berlin.
The issue centers around whether their suits can continue to be heard in US courts.
Both cases involve the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally prohibits foreign countries like Germany and Hungary from being sued in US courts, except for cases that violate international law.
Germany and Hungary claim the lawsuits should be resolved in foreign courts and US federal courts should decide not to hear them.
“Given the nature of international relations, it’s easy to envision cases where it would seem particularly inappropriate for United States courts to get involved in litigation,” Chief Justice John Roberts said during the hearing Monday, but questioned whether it might still be “appropriate in particularly sensitive international relations cases.”
The 13th-century Dome Reliquary of the Guelph Treasure is displayed at the Bode Museum in Berlin. APJustice Neil Gorsuch suggested that forcing individual federal district courts to assess the foreign importance of cases could cause “bedlam.”
Justice Samuel Alito echoed those concerns.
“I mean there are almost 700 district judges. You want every one of them to assess whether a particular lawsuit raises foreign relations concerns?” Alito asked.
A lawyer for the Hungarian Holocaust survivors urged the high court to allow the lawsuit to proceed in the US.
“Here Hungary took everything the plaintiffs owned, including possessions necessary to survive, such as shelter, clothing and medicine — and the undisputed purpose of Hungary’s takings was to bring about the physical destruction of Jews in Hungary,” attorney Sarah Harrington said.
“This is genocide and it is hard to imagine a more vivid example of property takings that themselves violate international law.”
A decision is expected in June.
With Post wires
