Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
592 U.S. 169
SCOTUS2021Background
- A consortium of three Jewish-owned art firms purchased the medieval Welfenschatz; in 1935 they allege Prussia (under the Nazi regime) coerced a sale at about one-third market value.
- The collection is now held and displayed by Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (SPK), an instrumentality of the Federal Republic of Germany.
- Heirs pursued a German advisory commission, which concluded the sale was not coerced; they then sued Germany and SPK in D.C. federal court seeking monetary relief under common-law property claims.
- Germany moved to dismiss, invoking FSIA sovereign immunity and arguing the §1605(a)(3) expropriation exception does not cover takings of a state’s own nationals (the domestic takings rule).
- Heirs argued the transfer was part of genocidal conduct and thus a violation of international human-rights law that fits the FSIA expropriation exception; the District Court and D.C. Circuit denied dismissal, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court held that the FSIA expropriation exception references the international law of expropriation (incorporating the domestic takings rule), vacated the D.C. Circuit judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1605(a)(3) covers takings of a state's own nationals when the taking violates international human-rights law (e.g., genocide) | The forced sale was genocidal; genocide is violation of international law, so the expropriation exception applies | The clause refers to international law of expropriation; under that law domestic takings are not violations of international law | The Court held the exception looks to the international law of expropriation and incorporates the domestic takings rule, so it does not reach takings of a state's own nationals |
| Whether courts may use genocide law (human-rights law) to establish FSIA jurisdiction over property claims | Yes — any international-law violation, including genocide, can trigger the exception | No — jurisdictional inquiry should consider property law, not human-rights law | The Court held jurisdictional inquiry is governed by property/expropriation law, not the law of genocide |
| Whether subsequent statutes (e.g., 2016 Clarification Act, HEAR Act) show Congress intended FSIA to reach Nazi-era human-rights takings | These statutes indicate congressional intent to enable adjudication of Nazi-era art claims in U.S. courts | Those statutes do not amend the critical phrase and generally promote nonlitigated remedies; they do not show Congress meant to eliminate sovereign immunity broadly | The Court found those statutes unpersuasive to reinterpret §1605(a)(3) and emphasized their limited, specialized scope |
| Whether other defenses or factual questions (comity, heirs' nationality at sale) defeat jurisdiction | Heirs argued nationality at time of sale may avoid domestic takings rule; also urged denial of comity abstention | Germany raised international comity and that sale involved German nationals so domestic takings rule applies | The Court did not decide comity and left the nationality argument to the court of appeals to consider on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, [citation="376 U.S. 398"] (addressing act of state doctrine and international-law controversy over expropriation)
- Republic of Austria v. Altmann, [citation="541 U.S. 677"] (discussing scope of FSIA expropriation exception and consensus about domestic takings rule)
- United States v. Belmont, [citation="301 U.S. 324"] (noting that a state's treatment of its own nationals' property is not for U.S. courts)
- Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., [citation="488 U.S. 428"] (describing FSIA's role in jurisdiction over foreign states)
- Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations v. City of New York, [citation="551 U.S. 193"] (noting reliance on international law as of FSIA enactment when interpreting the Act)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., [citation="569 U.S. 108"] (interpreting statutes to avoid unintended foreign policy consequences)