Supreme Court majority appears skeptical of allowing Holocaust survivors to sue Hungary in US courts

A majority of the Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared skeptical that Holocaust victims and their families are permitted to haul Hungary into American courts to recover property stolen during World War II, with several justices fearing that would open the United States up to a flood of similar litigation from abroad.

A majority of the Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared skeptical that Holocaust victims and their families are permitted to haul Hungary into American courts to recover property stolen during World War II, with several justices fearing that would open the United States up to a flood of similar litigation from abroad. More than a dozen victims of the Holocaust and their families have been fighting the Republic of Hungary and its national railway for nearly 15 years over whether they may continue their lawsuit in federal courts under a narrow exception to the general prohibition on suing foreign governments in the United States. Hungary “stole respondents’ property while forcing them onto cattle cars,” Shay Dvoretzky, representing the families, told the Supreme Court during about 90 minutes of arguments. When Hungary then used the money it received from selling that property to buy equipment in the United States, “it put into the United States property that had been exchanged for the expropriated property.” The appeal appeared likely to split the Supreme Court along nonideological lines, with both conservatives and liberals concerned about the implications of a decision for the families. Foreign nations generally have what’s known as sovereign immunity that bars parties from suing them in domestic courts. But federal law in the United States includes an exception when a case involves expropriated property that is present in the US. The families say the money Hungary received when it liquidated the property it stole from Jewish families was comingled with other funds and that some portion of that money was then spent in the US. Because of that, the families argue, the exception should apply.