Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-351_o7jp.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY ET AL. v. PHILIPP 
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 19–351.  Argued December 7, 2020—Decided February 3, 2021 

Respondents are the heirs of German Jewish art dealers who formed a 
consortium during the waning years of the Weimar Republic to pur-
chase a collection of medieval relics known as the Welfenschatz.  The 
heirs allege that when the Nazi government rose to power, it unlaw-
fully coerced the consortium into selling the collection to Prussia for a
third of its value.  The relics are currently maintained by the Stiftung 
Preussischer  Kulturbesitz  (SPK),  an  instrumentality  of  the  Federal 
Republic of Germany, and displayed at a Berlin museum.  After unsuc-
cessfully seeking compensation in Germany, the heirs brought several
common law property claims in United States District Court against
Germany  and  SPK  (collectively  Germany).    Germany  moved  to  dis-
miss, arguing that it was immune from suit under the Foreign Sover-
eign Immunities Act.  As relevant, Germany asserted that the heirs’ 
claims did not fall within the FSIA’s exception to sovereign immunity 
for  “property  taken  in  violation  of  international  law,”  28  U. S. C. 
§1605(a)(3), because a sovereign’s taking of its own nationals’ property
is not unlawful under the international law of expropriation.  The heirs 
countered that the exception did apply because Germany’s purchase of 
the Welfenschatz was an act of genocide, and the relics were therefore 
taken  in  violation  of  international  human  rights  law.    The  District 
Court denied Germany’s motion to dismiss, and the D. C. Circuit af-
firmed. 

Held: The phrase “rights in property taken in violation of international
law,” as used in the FSIA’s expropriation exception, refers to violations
of the international law of expropriation and thereby incorporates the
domestic takings rule.  Pp. 4–16.