Rosalie Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 421 U.S. App. D.C. 67

Background

In 1944 the Hungarian government, allied with Nazi Germany, enacted measures (ghettoization, confiscation, deportation) that led to the mass extermination of Hungarian Jews and widespread seizure of their personal property.
Fourteen Holocaust survivors (plaintiffs) sued Hungary and its state railway (MÁV) in D.C. federal court alleging property-based torts (conversion, unjust enrichment, restitution) and personal-injury claims tied to those wartime expropriations and genocidal conduct.
District court dismissed claims against Hungary and MÁV for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the FSIA, holding the 1947 Treaty of Peace (U.S.–Hungary) foreclosed suit via the FSIA’s treaty exception.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the 1947 Treaty does not preclude extra‑treaty judicial claims and that the FSIA’s expropriation exception applies because the alleged takings were genocidal and therefore “in violation of international law.”
The court assumed plaintiffs’ factual allegations true at the jurisdictional stage, reviewed FSIA exceptions de novo, and evaluated treaty preemption, the expropriation exception, nexus to the U.S., and political‑question/justiciability concerns.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the 1947 Peace Treaty (Art.27/Art.40) bar extra‑treaty judicial claims via the FSIA treaty exception?	Article 27 creates a right to restoration/compensation but is not exclusive; Article 40’s state‑to‑state process governs treaty disputes only.	Article 27+40 provide an exclusive, nonjudicial remedy for wartime property claims and thus preempt FSIA exceptions.	Treaty does not preclude extra‑treaty judicial claims; Article 27 creates a non‑exclusive minimum remedy.
Do plaintiffs’ property claims fall within FSIA §1605(a)(3) (expropriation exception)?	Takings were part of genocide; genocidal expropriations are takings “in violation of international law,” bringing property claims within §1605(a)(3).	Plaintiffs were Hungarian nationals; the domestic‑takings rule prevents treating intrastate takings as violations of international law.	Genocidal takings constitute violations of international law; domestic‑takings rule inapplicable to genocidal expropriations; certain property claims satisfy §1605(a)(3).
Do plaintiffs satisfy §1605(a)(3)’s commercial‑activity / presence nexus (for Hungary and MÁV)?	Alleged that defendants retained or commingled proceeds and that MÁV conducts commercial activities in the U.S.	Defendants argue no present property/proceeds in U.S. and Hungary lacks commercial activity in U.S.	Allegations suffice as to MÁV (commercial activity in U.S.) and plausibly allege retention of proceeds; allegations insufficient as to Hungary itself (conclusory on commercial activity).
Is the case a non‑justiciable political question (or otherwise foreclosed by executive/foreign‑policy concerns)?	Judicial resolution of private restitution claims does not usurp political branches and does not conflict with treaty or Executive practice.	Treaty/Executive agreements show political‑branch primacy; judicial adjudication risks foreign‑relations interference.	No political‑question barrier on the record; Executive filed no objection specific to Hungary; adjudication permissible.

Key Cases Cited

Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (pleading standards and assuming facts true at immunity stage)
Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 784 F.3d 804 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (non‑frivolous standard where jurisdictional and merits inquiries overlap)
Agudas Chasidei Chabad of U.S. v. Russian Fed’n, 528 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (FSIA expropriation and nexus principles)
Abelesz v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, 692 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2012) (similar Hungary‑Holocaust claims; relevant to treaty and expropriation analyses)
de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 714 F.3d 591 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (treaty exception interpretation)
Phoenix Consulting Inc. v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (jurisdictional factual inquiry when defendants contest possession of proceeds)
Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193 (U.S. 2007) (what constitutes a property interest for FSIA property exceptions)
Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 541 U.S. 677 (U.S. 2004) (foreign‑relation context and expropriation principles)
Sosa v. Alvarez‑Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (caution in recognizing violations of international law; historic development of norms)
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1946) (pleading sufficiency for jurisdictional‑merits overlap)