Supreme Court Sides With Germany in Nazi-era Art Collection Dispute
The heirs of Nazi-era Jewish art dealers were hit with a blow in the court case of Germany v. Phillipp that was heard in the U.S. Supreme Court this past week.
The plaintiffs in the case are contesting the acquisition of an art collection that was obtained by German Nazis in 1935. In a unanimous vote, the court sided with Germany and rejected the ruling of the lower courts that allowed the claim to proceed through to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit target both the German government and the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation. The foundation provides oversight of Berlin’s museums where the art collection is currently held.
At the center of the lawsuit is the collection of ecclesiastical relics often referred to as the Welfenschatz. The art collection also includes a gilded cross and the bust of saints. The pieces date to the 11th and 15th centuries.
The plaintiffs argue that the art collection was sold by Jewish art dealers under duress. The lawsuit states, “the choice they faced was clear, their property or their life.” According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking to either have the collection returned to them or a payment of $250 million.
The heirs of the Jewish art dealers argue that the way Germany obtained the artwork was a violation of international law and that under the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), their litigation was legitimate in U.S. Courts. Attorneys for the heirs argue that the artwork was taken as an act of genocide seeing as the Jewish art dealers were coerced into selling the collection at a fraction of its worth. However, the Supreme Court pushed back, saying that because Germany took the property of its own nationals, the act would fall under the “domestic takings rule” which according to the opinion written by Justice Roberts "assumes that what a country does to property belonging to its own citizens within its own borders is not the subject of international law.”
Germany has denied any wrongdoing, and the opinion of the Court explains, “Germany argued that it was immune from suit because the heirs’ claims did not fall within the FSIA’s exception to immunity for ‘property taken in violation of international law.’”
Nicholas M. O’Donnell, an attorney representing one of the heirs, shares his opposition to the Court's opinion and explains that the coercion of Jewish art dealers to sell their artwork at a below-market price was a “sham transaction.” O’Donnell expresses, "Nazis, led by Hermann Goering and for Hitler's personal benefit, forced the sale of the collection at issue in this case. If such a coerced sale is not a taking in violation of international law, then nothing is."
The president of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, Hermann Parzinger, stated in support of the Court's decision that the ruling reaffirmed the organization's conviction that the case had no merit to be heard in U.S. courts.
Following the opinion, the Supreme Court did not immediately dismiss the claim. Rather, they sent the case back to the lower courts for further evaluation. The lower courts will be able to hear arguments regarding whether or not the claim could still have merit because German Jews were not considered to be German citizens at the time of the dispute.
The case shares similar aspects of another case, Hungary v. Simon, which was heard in U.S. courts regarding survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust. In this case, relatives and survivors of the holocaust including some who were sent to the Auschwitz concentration camp filed suit against the Republic of Hungary. The plaintiffs were seeking to be compensated for land and other property that was taken from them when they were forcibly boarded onto trains and sent to concentration camps. In both cases, the Trump administration pushed for the courts to side with the foreign nations.
