The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously blocks Holocaust survivors from suing Hungary in American courts over wartime asset seizures.
At a Glance
- Supreme Court rules 9-0 against Holocaust survivors’ lawsuit against Hungary
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the court’s opinion in Republic of Hungary v. Simon
- Ruling upholds Hungary’s sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
- Court finds insufficient commercial nexus between seized property and U.S. business activity
- Decision leaves open possibility for plaintiffs to seek redress in other forums
Supreme Court’s Unanimous Decision
In a significant ruling, the United States Supreme Court has unanimously decided that a group of Holocaust survivors and their families cannot sue Hungary in U.S. courts over World War II-era asset seizures. The case, Republic of Hungary v. Simon, centered on the interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and its application to wartime property confiscations.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court, explained the crux of the decision: “The issue presented in this case is whether alleging commingling of funds alone can satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the expropriation exception of the FSIA. The Court holds that it cannot.”
The Lawsuit’s Background
The lawsuit, initially filed in 2010, sought compensation for property confiscated during the Holocaust by Hungary and its railway system. The plaintiffs, comprising Holocaust survivors and their families, argued that Hungary had sold the seized property and used the proceeds in the United States for commercial activities. This claim was based on the theory that commingling of funds created a sufficient connection to U.S. commerce.
The case had a complex journey through the U.S. legal system. A federal district court initially dismissed the lawsuit, citing a peace treaty between the U.S. and Hungary. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed this decision, allowing the case to proceed. The Supreme Court’s ruling now vacates the appeals court’s decision and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Implications of the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision hinges on the interpretation of the FSIA’s expropriation exception, which allows lawsuits against foreign sovereigns if the property in question has a commercial nexus to the United States. The Court ruled that the mere commingling of funds does not satisfy this requirement, effectively barring the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims in U.S. courts.
“Today’s decision concerns only what plaintiffs must plead to bring suit against foreign sovereigns for their actions abroad in the courts of the United States. That a particular claim cannot satisfy the expropriation exception means only that it cannot be brought here, not that it cannot be brought in any forum,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
This ruling follows a similar decision in favor of Germany in a case involving the Guelph Treasure, which further limited the ability of Holocaust survivors to seek restitution through the U.S. legal system.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling is a setback for the Holocaust survivors and their families, it does not entirely close the door. The Court acknowledged that while this particular claim cannot be brought in U.S. courts, it may be pursued elsewhere. This leaves open the possibility for the plaintiffs to seek legal redress through alternative channels, potentially in international courts or through diplomatic negotiations.
