Germany v. Philipp

Last updated

Germany v. Philipp
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 7, 2020
Decided February 3, 2021
Full case nameFederal Republic of Germany et al. v. Philipp et al.
Docket no. 19-351
Citations592 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinion
MajorityRoberts, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the applicability of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) for heirs of victims of the Holocaust to sue Germany in the United States court systems for compensation for items that were taken by the Nazi Party during World War II. At issue in the case was whether claims fell within the FSIA's exception to sovereign immunity for “property taken in violation of international law,” 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(3), given that the sovereign here was alleged to have engaged in a taking of its own nationals’ property; and whether courts can invoke the doctrine of international comity under the FSIA to abstain from exercising jurisdiction based on prudential considerations. In a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that FSIA does not allow these survivors to sue Germany in U.S. court, as the sale was an act of expropriation of property rather than an act of genocide, though other means of recovery are still potentially available.

Contents

The decision also resolved a related case, Republic ofHungary v. Simon, which examined the application of the doctrines of international comity and forum non conveniens for expropriation exception cases brought under the FSIA. The Court decided the case per curiam based on the ruling of Germany v. Philipp on February 3, 2021.

Background

During World War II, the Nazi Party imprisoned numerous people, including a large number of Jewish people, and stripped them of their possessions. In other cases, the Nazi rule forced these people to sell their possessions at significantly reduced prices. At the center of the current case is the Guelph Treasure with an estimated value of US$250 million in 2020. The items were purchased by a consortium of Jewish art dealers prior to the war, but they were then forced to sell the collection at a third of its value in 1935 to agents of Hermann Göring. After the war, the Guelph Treasure pieces were moved to the Kunstgewerbemuseum Berlin (Museum of Decorative Arts) which is overseen by the Federal Republic of Germany under the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, where they have remained as part of the exhibits. [1]

Heirs of the Jewish art dealers began seeking means to recover the collection from Germany around 2008, first seeking action within Germany itself. They argued that any post-1933 sale should be treated as an act of coercion and thus considered invalid, but Germany ruled that the dealers sold the collection voluntarily and were compensated fairly, and thus the collection was acquired legitimately. [2] The heirs turned to United States courts to sue Germany under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which normally gives immunities to foreign countries except in certain situations. The heirs claimed that the FSIA allowed for countries to be sued for violations of "rights in property taken in violation of international law", of which the acts of genocide that the Nazi Party performed during World War II would qualify. [2]

The heirs brought suit against Germany and the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking the value of the collection in compensation in exchange for letting Germany retain the collection. Germany moved to dismiss the case, claiming that the FSIA clause related to "rights in property" did not apply to the sale since there was no involvement of a foreign state at the time. The district court denied Germany's motion to dismiss. Germany appealed this to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld the District Court's refusal to dismiss. Subsequently, Germany filed a petition to the Supreme Court to rule on the applicability of FSIA to the case. The Court certified the case in July 2020. [1]

Supreme Court

Oral hearings for the case were held on December 7, 2020, alongside those of Hungary v. Simon, a related case involving the use of FSIA to compensate heirs to Polish victims of the Holocaust whose possessions were stolen while they were transported to concentration camps. [2] Observers to the oral hearings said that the Justices were wary of placing the United States court system in the middle of foreign affairs, a matter better resolved by the State Department. [2]

The Supreme Court ruled in both cases on February 3, 2021. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the unanimous opinion of the court for Germany vacating the lower court rulings and remanding the case for further consideration. The court determined that the heirs did not qualify for the "rights in property" allowance under the FSIA, which is reserved for the taking of property from one state by another, and not between a foreign state and individuals. Roberts' opinion believed that they needed to consider the original sale of the art under act of expropriation rather than genocide in determining if FSIA applied. [3] Roberts also relied on an international case law from Jurisdictional Immunities of the State heard by the International Court of Justice, a rarity for the Supreme Court, while had determined for Germany that "a state is not deprived of immunity by reason of the fact that it is accused of serious violations of international human rights law." [3] Roberts wrote that by taking the heirs' position, they would undermine other provisions of FSIA that Congress had explicitly included, and open the United States itself to claims from other foreign courts. Roberts stated in his opinion that there may be other means through which the heirs could seek legal redress from Germany in the United States court systems beyond FSIA, which should be explored with the remanded case. [4]

In Hungary v. Simon, the court issued a per curiam order based on the Germany decision to remand its case back to lower courts for further review. [4]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act</span> United States law

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602–1611 of the United States Code, that established criteria as to whether a foreign sovereign nation is immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts—federal or state. The Act also establishes specific procedures for service of process, attachment of property and execution of judgment in proceedings against a foreign state. The FSIA provides the exclusive basis and means to bring a civil suit against a foreign sovereign in the United States. It was signed into law by United States President Gerald Ford on October 21, 1976.

Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, applies retroactively to acts prior to its enactment in 1976.

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the policy of United States federal courts would be to honor the Act of State Doctrine, which dictates that the propriety of decisions of other countries relating to their internal affairs would not be questioned in the courts of the United States.

The doctrine and rules of state immunity concern the protection which a state is given from being sued in the courts of other states. The rules relate to legal proceedings in the courts of another state, not in a state's own courts. The rules developed at a time when it was thought to be an infringement of a state's sovereignty to bring proceedings against it or its officials in a foreign country.

The act-of-state doctrine or federal act of state doctrine is a principle of federal common law in the United States which states, in circumstances where it applies, that courts in the United States will not rule on the validity of another government's (formal) sovereign act with respect to property located within the latter's own territory. The act-of-state doctrine enters consideration most often in cases where a foreign sovereign has expropriated the property of a U.S. national located in that foreign territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.

Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the term "based upon a commercial activity" within the meaning of the first clause of 1605(a)(2) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.

Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court construed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow a federal court to hear a lawsuit brought by the City of New York to recover unpaid property taxes levied against India and Mongolia, both of which own real estate in New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Guelph Treasure</span>

The Guelph Treasure is a collection of medieval ecclesiastical art originally housed at Brunswick Cathedral in Braunschweig, Germany. The Treasure takes its name from the princely House of Guelph of Brunswick-Lüneburg.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2013 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2013 term, which began October 7, 2013 and concluded October 5, 2014.

Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion regarding foreign sovereign immunity. After defaulting on its debt and losing a federal collection action, Argentina claimed that its foreign assets were immune from discovery. The Court found that no such immunity existed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Court held that civil service of a lawsuit against the government of Sudan was invalid because the civil complaints and summons had been sent to the Embassy of Sudan in Washington, D.C. rather than to the Sudanese Foreign Minister in Khartoum.

Jam v. International Finance Corp., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Supreme Court ruled that international organizations, such as the World Bank Group's financing arm, the International Finance Corporation, can be sued in US federal courts for conduct arising from their commercial activities. It specifically held that international organizations shared the same sovereign immunity as foreign governments. This was a reversal from existing jurisprudence, which held that international organizations had near-absolute immunity from lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the International Organizations Immunities Act.

Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act with its 2008 amendments, whether plaintiffs in federal lawsuits against foreign countries may seek punitive damages for cause of actions prior to enactment of the amended law, with the specific case dealing with victims and their families from the 1998 United States embassy bombings. The Court ruled unanimously in May 2020 that punitive damages can be sought from foreign nations in such cases for preenactment conduct.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marik String</span> American lawyer

Marik String is an American attorney, national security expert, and U.S. Navy officer, who served as Acting Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State from 2019 to 2021.

References

  1. 1 2 Schuetze, Christopher F. (July 10, 2020). "U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on Medieval Treasure Bought by Nazis". The New York Times . Retrieved February 3, 2021.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Liptak, Adam (December 7, 2020). "Supreme Court Hears Holocaust Survivors' Cases Against Hungary and Germany". The New York Times . Retrieved February 3, 2021.
  3. 1 2 Liptak, Adam (February 3, 2021). "Supreme Court Rules for Germany in Case on Nazi-Era Art". The New York Times . Retrieved February 3, 2021.
  4. 1 2 Robinson, Kimberly Strawbridge (February 3, 2021). "Nazi-Era Claims Can't Be Heard Now in U.S. Courts, SCOTUS Says". Bloomberg News . Retrieved February 3, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.