Nearly eight decades after the conclusion of World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court is now considering a case pivotal to Holocaust survivors seeking restitution for property confiscated during the conflict. On December 2, 2024, oral arguments unfolded regarding whether Hungarian Holocaust survivors can proceed with a lawsuit against Hungary and its national railway, MÁV, to recover confiscated assets. A detailed account and analysis of the proceedings can be found on SCOTUSblog.
The survivors contend that from November 1944, during the massacre of over 560,000 Hungarian Jews, the Hungarian government and MÁV seized assets from the Jewish community as part of the national wealth declaration. This case, initially filed in 2010, builds on precedent federal law particularly the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which typically shields foreign states from U.S. court suits unless specific exceptions like “expropriation” are proven applicable.
The crux of this dispute lies in whether the “expropriation” exception of FSIA applies here. Typically, this exception allows cases that involve property seized in contravention of international law when said property is linked to commercial activities in the United States. The plaintiffs claim that, though the original assets are not located in the U.S., proceeds from these assets were liquidated, commingled, and currently exist in the U.S. as part of Hungary’s commercial dealings.
Meanwhile, Hungary and MÁV dispute this claim, arguing that the application of the “commingling” theory by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is inconsistent with FSIA’s expropriation clause. They assert that this theory could relax restrictions on lawsuits against foreign governments, warning it might open floodgates for future domestic trials over international conflicts, potentially contravening the intentions of FSIA.
The United States government has thrown its support behind Hungary, highlighting that while they deplore the Holocaust atrocities, ensuring foreign states’ immunity in U.S. courts prevents protracted global litigations against the U.S. The administration argues that the D.C. Circuit’s rationale doesn’t align with the FSIA’s delineations, pointing to the challenge of tracing seized properties back to foreign countries’ current assets.
Survivors challenge these claims, arguing that monetary assets are fungible by nature and the commingled funds in U.S. should qualify under the FSIA exception. They allege the government’s interpretation would allow foreign nations to escape liability by laundering confiscated assets through general treasuries.
This case, marked by its extensive procedural history, returns to the Supreme Court with particular focus on the expropriation exception’s interpretation. For colleagues in the legal profession, further insights into its intricate legal arguments and potential ramifications can be explored in more detail here.