Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-351_o7jp.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

4 

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY v. PHILIPP 

Opinion of the Court 

violation of international law.”  Id., at 410–411 (quoting Si-
mon  v.  Republic  of  Hungary,  812  F. 3d  127,  145  (CADC 
2016); alterations omitted).  The D. C. Circuit declined Ger-
many’s request for en banc review.  925 F. 3d 1349 (2019) 
(per curiam).

Judge Katsas dissented from the denial of rehearing en
banc. 
In  his  view,  the  majority’s  analysis  erroneously 
“ma[de] the district court sit as a war crimes tribunal to ad-
judicate claims of genocide,” while “clear[ing] the way for a 
wide range of litigation against foreign sovereigns for public 
acts committed within their own territories.”  Id., at 1350. 

We granted certiorari.  591 U. S. ___ (2020). 

II 

Enacted in 1976, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 
supplies the ground rules for “obtaining jurisdiction over a
foreign state in the courts of this country.”  Argentine Re-
public v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U. S. 428, 443 
(1989).  The Act creates a baseline presumption of immun-
ity  from  suit.  §1604.    “[U]nless  a  specified  exception  ap-
plies, a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over
a claim against a foreign state.”  Saudi Arabia  v. Nelson, 
507 U. S. 349, 355 (1993).

The heirs contend that their claims fall within the excep-
tion for “property taken in violation of international law,” 
§1605(a)(3), because the coerced sale of the Welfenschatz, 
their property, constituted an act of genocide, and genocide
is a violation of international human rights law.  Germany
argues that the exception is inapplicable because the rele-
vant  international  law  is  the  international  law  of  prop-
erty—not the law of genocide—and under the international 
law of property a foreign sovereign’s taking of its own na-
tionals’ property remains a domestic affair.  This “domestic 
takings rule” assumes that what a country does to property
belonging to its own citizens within its own borders is not 
the subject of international law.  See Bolivarian Republic of