Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
596 U.S. 107
SCOTUS2022Background
- Camille Pissarro’s painting Rue Saint‑Honoré was owned by the Cassirer family and was surrendered to Nazi authorities in 1939 to secure an exit visa.
- The painting later surfaced in private collections and was acquired in the 1990s by the Thyssen‑Bornemisza Collection Foundation, an instrumentality controlled by the Kingdom of Spain.
- Claude Cassirer (and later his heirs) sued the Foundation in federal court in California asserting property claims and invoking the FSIA’s expropriation exception to overcome sovereign immunity.
- The courts below held the expropriation exception applied, then adopted a federal choice‑of‑law rule and applied Spanish property law, resulting in a judgment for the Foundation.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split in the circuits over whether FSIA cases raising non‑federal claims should follow forum‑state choice‑of‑law rules or a federal rule.
- The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and held that FSIA §1606 requires using the choice‑of‑law rule that would govern a similar suit against a private party (i.e., the forum state’s rule); remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What choice‑of‑law rule governs FSIA suits raising non‑federal claims? | Use forum state’s choice‑of‑law rule (California). | Use a federal common‑law choice‑of‑law rule. | Use the same rule as in a comparable private‑party suit — the forum state’s choice‑of‑law rule. |
| Does FSIA §1606 require treating foreign states like private parties for substantive law and choice‑of‑law? | Yes — §1606 makes sovereigns liable “in the same manner and to the same extent” as private parties, so the same choice‑of‑law must apply. | Argued a federal rule could govern to protect foreign‑relations interests. | §1606 requires mirroring the private‑party choice‑of‑law rule to ensure identical substantive law and liability. |
| Is there a need for federal common law to select governing law in such FSIA cases? | No — no necessary federal interest; state rules suffice and the U.S. government disclaimed a need for a uniform federal rule. | Ninth Circuit endorsed a federal rule (but offered little justification). | Federal common‑law displacement of state choice‑of‑law is unjustified here; courts should apply forum‑state rules absent a distinct federal interest. |
| Effect on the present ownership dispute? | Forum‑state choice‑of‑law (California) may lead to California property law controlling, potentially favoring Cassirer. | Federal rule produced application of Spanish law, favoring Foundation. | The Supreme Court did not decide ownership; remanded to apply the forum’s choice‑of‑law rule and then determine substantive ownership. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983) (FSIA was not intended to alter substantive law; §1606 equates foreign‑state liability to private parties)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (federal courts in diversity must apply forum state’s choice‑of‑law rules)
- Texas Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630 (1981) (federal common law displaces state law only to protect uniquely federal interests)
- Barkanic v. Gen. Admin. of Civ. Aviation of People’s Republic of China, 923 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1991) (apply same choice‑of‑law analysis to ensure identical substantive law and liability)
- Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 573 F.3d 835 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (§1606 directs a “pass‑through” to the substantive law that would govern a similar suit between private parties)