The US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against a group of Holocaust survivors in their pursuit of reparations from Hungary for property confiscated during World War II. The ruling in Republic of Hungary v. Simon emphasizes the doctrine of “presumptive immunity” afforded to foreign states under U.S. law.
Delivered by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the opinion highlights that foreign governments generally enjoy immunity from lawsuits in U.S. courts, a principle established under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). However, exceptions to this immunity exist when the property in question is taken in violation of international law and there is a commercial connection to the U.S.
In this case, the plaintiffs, comprising Holocaust survivors and their heirs, attempted to leverage this FSIA exception. They argued that their confiscated property had a “commercial nexus” to the U.S., pointing out that the Hungarian defendants had sold the property and mixed the proceeds with funds within a government treasury account. Despite these contentions, the Court found the exception to be a “limited departure” from the rule of immunity and ruled that the mere mingling of proceeds with governmental funds failed to establish the necessary commercial nexus for the FSIA exception to apply.
This decision marks a continuation of the judicial stance taken by the Supreme Court in 2021 when it rejected a similar claim against Hungary, supporting the notion that exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity remain narrowly construed, especially in the context of historical grievances. During World War II, many Jews were persecuted and transported to Nazi camps by the Hungarian State Railways under Nazi occupation.
The Holocaust survivors’ legal journey began in 2014, when they initially sued Hungary, demanding reparations for the state’s actions. This latest ruling underscores the high bar set for suing foreign states in U.S. courts and reaffirms the strength of sovereign immunity in international law claims.
For further details on the court’s ruling, refer to the full JURIST article.