Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-351_o7jp.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

Property Seized as a Result of Nazi Persecution, Especially 
Jewish Property.  Germany established the Advisory Com-
mission  under  the  Washington  Conference  Principles  on 
Nazi-Confiscated  Art,  an  initiative  spearheaded  by  the
United States to encourage the development of new mecha-
nisms for resolving Nazi-era claims.  See Brief for United 
States as Amicus Curiae 4.  After hearing from expert wit-
nesses and reviewing documentary evidence, the Commis-
sion likewise concluded that the sale had occurred at a fair 
price without duress. 

Disappointed  by  the  proceedings  in  Germany,  the  heirs
filed  suit  in  Federal  District  Court  in  Washington,  D. C. 
They brought several common law property claims against
Germany and SPK, seeking $250 million in compensation. 
Petitioners SPK and the Federal Republic of Germany—col-
lectively  Germany—moved  to  dismiss  the  case.    Relevant 
here,  Germany  argued  that  it  was  immune  from  suit  be-
cause the heirs’ claims did not fall within the FSIA’s excep-
tion to immunity for “property taken in violation of interna-
tional law.”  See 28 U. S. C. §1605(a)(3); see also §1603(a)
(defining “foreign state” to include “an agency or instrumen-
tality of a foreign state”).  In doing so, Germany reasoned 
that the purchase of the Welfenschatz could not have vio-
lated international law because a sovereign’s taking of its 
own nationals’ property is not unlawful under the interna-
tional law of expropriation.  The heirs responded that the 
exception  did  apply  because  Germany’s  purchase  of  the 
Welfenschatz was an act of genocide and the taking there-
fore violated the international law of genocide.

The  District  Court  denied  Germany’s  motion,  248 
F. Supp. 3d 59, 70–74 (DC 2017), and a panel of the D. C. 
Circuit  affirmed,  894  F. 3d  406  (2018).    The  panel  agreed
with the heirs that the exception for property taken in vio-
lation of international law was satisfied because “genocide 
perpetrated by a state even against its own nationals is a