Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-351_o7jp.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

The heirs also rely on other statutes aimed at promoting 
restitution to the victims of the Holocaust.  The Acts include 
the Holocaust Victims Redress Act of 1998, 112 Stat. 15; the 
Holocaust  Expropriated  Art  Recovery  Act  of  2016  (HEAR 
Act),  130  Stat.  1524;  and  the  Justice  for  Uncompensated 
Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017, Pub. L. 115–171, 132
Stat.  1288.    These  laws,  the  heirs  suggest,  demonstrate 
Congress’s  desire  for  American  courts  to  hear  disputes
about Holocaust-era property claims. 

The statutes do promote restitution for the victims of the 
Holocaust,  but  they  generally  encourage  redressing  those 
injuries outside of public court systems.  The HEAR Act, for 
example, states that “the use of alternative dispute resolu-
tion” mechanisms will “yield just and fair resolutions in a
more  efficient  and  predictable  manner”  than  litigation  in 
court.  §2(8),  130  Stat.  1525.  Germany  has  adopted  just
such an alternative mechanism, the Advisory Commission,
and the heirs availed themselves of that opportunity to re-
solve  their  claims.  Ibid.    See  also  Brief  for  Petitioners  5 
(“[T]he German government has provided roughly $100 bil-
lion (in today’s dollars) to compensate Holocaust survivors 
and other victims of the Nazi era.”). 

These laws do not speak to sovereign immunity.  That is 
the province of the FSIA, which provides the carefully con-
structed  framework  necessary  for  addressing  an  issue  of 
such international concern.  The heirs have not shown that 
the  FSIA  allows  them  to  bring  their  claims  against  Ger-
many.  We cannot permit them to bypass its design. 

IV 
We hold that the phrase “rights in property taken in vio-
lation of international law,” as used in the FSIA’s expropri-
ation exception, refers to violations of the international law 
of expropriation and thereby incorporates the domestic tak-
ings rule.

We do not address Germany’s argument that the District