About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (February 5, 2021)

handle is hein.crs/govecch0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional ______ Research Service Two Supreme Court Cases to Test Limits on Foreign Sovereign Immunity for Holocaust Harms Updated February 5, 2021 UPDATE: On February 3, 2021, the Supreme Court issued unanimous opinions in Germany and Hungary, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not permit claims against foreign governments for taking property from their own citizens, even if the taking occurred as part of a genocide or other human rights violation. The Court agreed with Germany that the FSIA's expropriation exception incorporated the international law of property which excludes purely domestic takings. The Court reasoned that the domestic takings rule does not implicate the law of genocide or human rights, and, as such, the expropriation exception does not apply. The Court did not address the comity question, nor did it address the factual dispute over whether an act of genocide took place. Instead, the Court remanded this case, as well as the Hungary case, for further proceedings consistent with its FSIA holding. The original post from December 16, 2020, is below. In two cases this term, Republic of Hungary v. Simon (Hungary) and Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp (Germany), the Supreme Court is set to address intersecting issues about foreign sovereign immunity and the Holocaust. The plaintiffs in both cases seek to make foreign governments liable for Nazi-era injuries. But the defendants, which include Hungary and Germany, argue the suits should be dismissed based on international comity-a legal doctrine that allows courts to abstain from jurisdiction out of respect for foreign sovereignty. Germany also argues that it is immune from suit because it believes the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not permit claims in U.S. courts against foreign governments for taking property from their own citizens within its own territory. The legal questions in both cases may have longstanding implications for when foreign countries can be sued in U.S. courts. The cases also have attracted attention because of the way in which the legal defenses intersect with the tragic events of the Holocaust. Some observers, including some Members of Congress, contend that the defendants' legal arguments contradict the historical timeline of the Holocaust. The United States, on the other hand, supports the defendants' legal theories in its role as amicus curiae. Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10563 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most