Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1566_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

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 

CASSIRER ET AL. v. THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA 
COLLECTION FOUNDATION 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 20–1566.  Argued January 18, 2022—Decided April 21, 2022 

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U. S. C. §1602 
et seq., governs whether a foreign state or instrumentality is amenable
to suit in an American court.  The question in this case is what choice-
of-law rule a court should use to determine the applicable substantive
law in an FSIA suit raising non-federal claims.  That issue arises in a 
dispute  concerning  the  ownership  of  an  Impressionist  painting:  Ca-
mille  Pissarro’s  Rue  Saint-Honoré  in  the  Afternoon,  Effect  of  Rain. 
Lilly Cassirer inherited the painting, which a family member had pur-
chased from Pissarro’s agent in 1900.  After the Nazis came to power 
in Germany, Lilly surrendered Rue Saint-Honoré to them to obtain an 
exit visa.  Lilly and her grandson, Claude, eventually ended up in the 
United States.  The family’s post-war search for Rue Saint-Honoré was 
unsuccessful.  In the early 1990s, the painting was purchased by the 
Thyssen-Bornemisza  Collection  Foundation,  an  entity  created  and
controlled  by  the  Kingdom  of  Spain.    Claude  learned  several  years 
later that Rue Saint-Honoré was listed in a catalogue of the Founda-
tion’s museum. 

Claude sued the Foundation, asserting various property-law claims 
based on the allegation that he owned Rue Saint-Honoré and was en-
titled to its return.  Because the Foundation is an “instrumentality” of
the Kingdom of Spain, the complaint invoked the FSIA to establish the 
court’s jurisdiction.  See §1603(b).  The FSIA provides foreign states 
and their instrumentalities with immunity from suit unless the claim 
falls within a specified exception.  See §§1605–1607.  The courts below 
held that the Nazi confiscation of Rue Saint-Honoré brought Claude’s
suit  against  the  Foundation  within  the  FSIA  exception  for  expropri-
ated property.  See §1605(a)(3).  That meant the Cassirer family’s suit