Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-351_o7jp.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

14 

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY v. PHILIPP 

Opinion of the Court 

III 
The heirs offer several counterarguments, but none can
overcome the text, context, and history of the expropriation 
exception.

First,  the  heirs  rely  on  the  2016  Foreign  Cultural  Ex-
change Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act.  The Act 
amends the FSIA to explain that participation in specified
“art  exhibition  activities”  does  not  qualify  as  “commercial 
activity” within the meaning of the expropriation exception. 
28 U. S. C. §1605(h).  This clarification responded to deci-
sions  of  federal  courts  holding  to  the  contrary,  see,  e.g., 
Malewicz v. Amsterdam, 362 F. Supp. 2d 298, 313–315 (DC 
2005),  and  enables  foreign  states  to  loan  art  to  American 
museums  without  fear  that  the  work’s  presence  in  the
United States will subject them to litigation here.  The pro-
vision, however, does not apply to claims brought against 
Germany  arising  out  of  the  period  from  January  1933
through  May  1945.    §§1605(h)(2),  (3).   According  to  the
heirs, this clarification of the expropriation exception shows 
that Congress anticipated Nazi-era claims could be adjudi-
cated by way of that exception. 

We  agree  with  the  heirs,  but  only  to  a  limited  extent. 
Claims  concerning  Nazi-era  art  takings  could  be  brought 
under the expropriation exception where the claims involve
the  taking  of  a  foreign  national’s  property.  See,  e.g.,  Alt-
mann,  541  U. S.,  at  680–682  (claim  concerning  Austrian 
taking of Czechoslovakian national’s art brought under the 
expropriation exception).  As for the heirs’ suggestion that 
the Clarification Act demonstrates that Congress meant to 
abrogate immunity for any Nazi-era claim, however, we do 
not  interpret  Congress’s  effort  to  preserve  sovereign  im-
munity in a narrow, particularized context—art shows—as
supporting  the  broad  elimination  of  sovereign  immunity 
across all areas of law.  The Clarification Act did not pur-
port to amend the critical phrase here—“taken in violation 
of international law”—and we will not construe it to do so.