Konowaloff v. Metropolitan Museum of Art
702 F.3d 140
2d Cir.2012Background
- Konowaloff, heir to Ivan Morozov, sues the Metropolitan Museum of Art over a painting confiscated from Morozov in 1918 by the RSFSR.
- Morozov allegedly possessed a renowned pre-1917 modern art collection, including Madame Cézanne in the Conservatory.
- The RSFSR declared Morozov's art collection state property in December 1918, depriving Morozov of ownership without compensation.
- In 1933 the painting was allegedly sold to Stephen Clark, who later bequeathed it to the Museum; the Amended Complaint alleges illicit provenance and Soviet-law violations.
- The United States recognized the Soviet government in 1933, and the district court held the act of state doctrine bars the action.
- Konowaloff contends the district court erred in treating the 1918 act as a valid act of state despite contrary allegations and seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the painting was taken pursuant to a valid act of state | Konowaloff alleges 1918 confiscation lacks legitimacy. | Museum argues act of state doctrine bars inquiry into validity of the 1918 expropriation. | Yes; valid act of state bars inquiry. |
| Whether post-confiscation events affect the act-of-state analysis | Alleges subsequent sales and title defects undermine the original act's validity. | Act of state doctrine precludes challenges to the initial expropriation regardless of later events. | No; reliance on the 1918 act controls; later events do not defeat the doctrine. |
| Whether regime change excuses application of the act of state doctrine | Soviet successor is not extant or repudiate the 1918 appropriation. | Retroactive recognition validates acts from inception; regime change does not undermine the 1918 act. | No; doctrine applies despite regime change. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (2d Cir. 1964) (foundation of act of state doctrine; not examining foreign acts)
- United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942) (recognition validates acts of government from inception)
- Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918) (recognition retroactivity validates government actions)
- United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937) (recognition of Soviet government validated acts here involved)
- Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304 (1918) (act of state doctrine governs acts within foreign sovereignty)
- W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., 493 U.S. 400 (1990) (act of state doctrine governs foreign acts in decision process)
- Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2001) (regime repudiation can alter act-of-state results)
- Republic of Philippines v. Marcos, 806 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1986) (successor government actions toward prior regime claims)