Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1566_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 7

4 

CASSIRER v. THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA COLLECTION 
FOUNDATION 
Opinion of the Court 

another  issue  lurked.  For  the  parties  contested  which 
choice-of-law rule should apply—serving up, so to speak, a 
choice  of  choice-of-law  principles.    The  Cassirer  plaintiffs
urged the use of California’s choice-of-law rule; the defend-
ant Foundation advocated a rule based in federal common 
law.  The  courts  below,  relying  on  a  minimally  reasoned
Ninth Circuit precedent, picked the federal option.  See 153 
F. Supp. 3d 1148, 1154 (CD Cal. 2015), aff ’d, 862 F. 3d 951,
961  (CA9  2017),  cert.  denied,  584  U. S.  ___  (2018).    That 
federal  choice-of-law  rule,  they  further  held,  commanded
the use of Spanish (not Californian) property law to resolve
the  ownership  issue.  See  153  F. Supp.  3d,  at  1155,  aff ’d, 
862 F. 3d, at 963.  Finally, the courts below determined af-
ter a trial that under Spanish law the Foundation was the
rightful  owner,  because  it  purchased  Rue  Saint-Honoré 
without  knowing  the  painting  was  stolen  and  had  held  it 
long enough to gain title through possession.  See No. 05– 
cv–03459 (CD Cal., Apr. 30, 2019), ECF Doc. 621, pp. 26–
30, aff ’d, 824 Fed. Appx. 452, 454–455 (CA9 2020). 

The Cassirers sought our review, limited to a single issue:
whether a court in an FSIA case raising non-federal claims
(relating to property, torts, contracts, and so forth) should
apply the forum State’s choice-of-law rule, or instead use a
federal one.  We granted certiorari, 594 U. S. ___ (2021), be-
cause that question has generated a split in the Courts of 
Appeals.  The Ninth Circuit stands alone in using a federal 
choice-of-law  rule  to  pick  the  applicable  substantive  law.
All other Courts of Appeals to have addressed the issue ap-
ply  the  choice-of-law  rule  of  the  forum  State.2    We  agree  

—————— 

2 See Barkanic v. General Admin. of Civ. Aviation of People’s Republic 
of China, 923 F. 2d 957, 959–961 (CA2 1991); Northrop Grumman Ship 
Systems, Inc. v. Ministry of Defense of Republic of Venezuela, 575 F. 3d 
491, 498 (CA5 2009); O’Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F. 3d 361, 381, n. 8 (CA6), 
cert. denied, 558 U. S. 819 (2009); Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 573 
F. 3d 835, 841 (CADC 2009).