The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to once again consider a long-running expropriation case brought by Holocaust survivors against Hungary. This time, the court will address whether the historical commingling of assets is sufficient to establish that the proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus to the U.S. This new question in the Holocaust suit has the potential to reshape the legal landscape for similar claims.
New Question In Holocaust Suit : Background of the Case
The justices granted certiorari in a case challenging a D.C. Circuit decision from last year. The ruling allowed plaintiffs who had asserted Czechoslovakian nationality to proceed with their expropriation claims against Hungary and its national railway, Magyar Államvasutak Zrt. The claims center on the Hungarian government’s confiscation of property owned by Jews during the Holocaust. The plaintiffs argue that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) expropriation exception should allow them to pierce Hungary’s sovereign immunity and assert jurisdiction in U.S. federal court.
New Question In Holocaust Suit:The Key Question
This new question in the Holocaust suit revolves around whether plaintiffs must make a valid claim that an FSIA exception applies at the pleading stage or if raising a plausible inference is sufficient. Additionally, the court will consider if a sovereign defendant must produce evidence to disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the U.S. under the FSIA’s expropriation exception.
The Simon Case
The case granted certiorari involves plaintiff Rosalie Simon. The case was previously before the justices in 2021 when they vacated a D.C. Circuit decision that allowed it to proceed. This decision was in line with their ruling in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, where the court rejected claims that fell within the FSIA’s expropriation exception as acts of genocide. Hungary is now seeking clarity on the commercial nexus question in the Simon case.
The Second Case Denied Review
The justices denied certiorari in a second case involving stateless petitioners, including Zehava Friedman. These plaintiffs argued they were denationalized through Hungary’s anti-Jewish laws and executive actions during the Holocaust, rendering them stateless. The D.C. Circuit ruled last year that these claimants had not made a recognized claim within an FSIA exception. Despite this, the court left the issue open for future decisions, as the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Philipp case did not foreclose their arguments.
New Question In Holocaust Suit : Counsel’s Perspective
Counsel for the claimants, L. Marc Zell of Zell Aron & Co., expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the Simon case, emphasizing the importance of resolving the circuit split concerning the commercial nexus question. Although disappointed that the Friedman petition was not reviewed, Zell noted that the issue remains open for future adjudication.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to revisit this expropriation case highlights the complexities involved in Holocaust restitution claims. The resolution of this new question in the Holocaust suit could have significant implications for how international law and historical injustices are addressed in U.S. courts.
