The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously sided with Germany and Hungary after Holocaust survivors sought to sue the countries in U.S. courts.
In both cases, Republic of Hungary v. Simon and Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, the court found that the Jewish survivors of World War II-era atrocities could not bring forward their case under human rights violation exceptions in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which limits the ways U.S. judges can deliver rulings in expropriation crimes that occurred internationally.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in the majority opinion, noted that although the court’s understanding of the law supported Germany and Hungary, he nonetheless found it “remarkable” that the exception does not extend more broadly to Holocaust survivors, since many recent international laws were written with World War II crimes in mind.
“The exception places repeated emphasis on property and property-related rights, while injuries and acts associated with violations of human rights law, such as genocide, are notably lacking — a remarkable omission if the provision was intended to provide relief for atrocities such as the Holocaust,” Roberts wrote.
Roberts added that if the United States were to intervene in the way that the survivors wanted, it “would arguably force courts themselves to violate international law.” He concluded that the arguments that the survivors used to support their case are generally used to “encourage redressing those injuries outside of public court systems.”
The court found that the plaintiffs “have not shown that the FSIA allows them to bring their claims against Germany” and Hungary specifically because the countries are protected by “sovereign immunity” except instances where the crime violated international laws.
In the German case, the plaintiffs were descendants of Jewish art dealers attempting to recover an art collection confiscated by the Nazi government and now on display in Berlin. In the Hungarian one, concentration camp survivors sought restitution from the government and the state-owned railroad MAV for its compliance in the Holocaust. Both claimed that the confiscation of their property connected to the Holocaust gives U.S. courts standing to intervene.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit sided with the Holocaust survivors, which led to the Supreme Court taking up the case. Roberts, in his opinion, vacated that decision and sent the case back for further consideration.
The Trump administration and the Supreme Court backed the German and Hungarian governments in both cases, saying that if either case proceeded, it could create foreign policy nightmare.
When the court heard arguments for the case in December, several justices displayed skepticism to the arguments for U.S. intervention. Justice Stephen Breyer noted that if either case should proceed, other countries might also take up U.S. domestic disputes in their courts.
“Look what you’re opening up,” Breyer said in reference to a possible list of cases that could be raised against the U.S. “You can have slavery. You can have systematic discrimination. You can have cruel and inhuman, degrading treatment. I mean, the list goes on and on of what violates international law, and many of them involve property.”
