Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-351_o7jp.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY v. PHILIPP 

Syllabus 

row, particularized context, however, does not support the broad elim-
ination of sovereign immunity across all areas of law.  Other statutes 
aimed  at  promoting  restitution  to  Holocaust  victims,  on  which  the 
heirs  rely,  generally  encourage  redressing  those  injuries  outside  of 
public  court  systems  and  do  not  speak  to  sovereign  immunity.   See, 
e.g., Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, 130 Stat. 1524.
Pp. 14–15. 

(c) This Court does not address Germany’s argument that the Dis-
trict Court was obligated to abstain from deciding the case on interna-
tional comity grounds or the heirs’ alternative argument that the sale
of the Welfenschatz is not subject to the domestic takings rule because 
the consortium members were not German nationals at the time of the 
transaction.  Pp. 15–16. 

894 F. 3d. 406, vacated and remanded. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.