U.S. Supreme Court hears World War Two-era Jewish property claims

[webfact]

U.S. Supreme Court hears World War Two-era Jewish property claims

By Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO: View of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S. November 4, 2020. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The lingering legacy of World War Two reached the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday as the justices weighed two cases involving claims by Jews in Germany and Hungary and their descendants whose property was taken amid persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.

 

The justices heard arguments in the two cases that hinge upon a federal law called the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that limits the jurisdiction of American courts over lawsuits against foreign governments.

 

In one case, the justices considered Germany's bid to avoid facing in a U.S. court a lawsuit that accused its former Nazi government of pressuring Jewish art dealers to sell a collection of medieval artwork in the 1930s. The other concerns Hungary's attempt to avoid litigation originally brought by 14 U.S. citizens who survived that nation's World War Two-era campaign of genocide against its Jewish population.

 

The justices appeared more sympathetic to the arguments made by Germany than Hungary, while also recognizing foreign policy concerns about allowing such claims in U.S. courts.

 

The Germany case focuses upon a 17th century collection of art known as the Welfenschatz that includes gem-studded busts of Christian saints, golden crucifixes and other precious objects. The plaintiffs - heirs of the art dealers - have said they are the collection's rightful owners.

 

They sued in U.S. federal court in Washington in 2015, saying Germany owes them either the return of the artwork or more than $250 million in damages.

 

In 1935, a group of Jewish art dealers in Germany sold the collection to the state of Prussia, then being administered by prominent Nazi official Hermann Goering. The plaintiffs called the sale a "sham transaction" made under duress. The collection is currently in the possession of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, a German governmental entity.

 

The foundation found in its own investigation of the matter that the sale was a "voluntary, fair-market transaction," Germany's lawyers said in court papers. A German commission that looks into restitution claims concerning property seized during the Nazi era reached a similar conclusion.

 

Germany has said U.S. courts should have no role because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not allow claims over the alleged seizure of property by a citizen's own government. Some justices questioned that assumption. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas among others wondered if "stateless people" who are stripped of citizenship would be left without recourse.

 

Some justices said the law's language seems to be clear that domestic property claims can be permitted if they fall within a broader genocide claim.

 

"It seems to cover the kind of property-taking that is at issue in this case," Justice Elena Kagan said.

 

Kagan and others also appeared to be worried about a ruling along those lines in part because it might require judges to undertake the contentious task of determining what constitutes a genocide.

 

A federal judge in Washington ruled against Germany in 2017. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit narrowed the case the following year, saying claims could proceed against the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation but not against Germany's government itself.

 

The Hungarian Holocaust survivors filed suit in Washington in 2010 seeking restitution for possessions taken from them and their families when they were forced to board trains destined for concentration camps. A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit in 2017 but the D.C. Circuit revived it a year later, prompting Hungary to appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

Hungary has said the possibility of "international friction" raised by the lawsuit means it should be dismissed and that the plaintiffs should sue in Hungary first.

 

The justices appeared reluctant to rule that foreign policy concerns could always be cited as a reason to dismiss a lawsuit, but some also seemed reluctant to conclude that such issues should not be considered.

 

President Donald Trump's administration has backed Germany and Hungary in the two cases.

 

Rulings in the cases are due by the end of June.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-12-08

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[mackayae]

Could be another Helen Mirren movie.

[Sujo]

I dont like these claims 70 years after the fact.

[Jingthing]

 

 

"President Donald Trump's administration has backed Germany and Hungary in the two cases."

 

---

 

Why does the fading presidency of Mr. Trump have an interest in this case either way?

[Jingthing]

21 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I dont like these claims 70 years after the fact.

Like or not like is irrelevant. As the Supreme Court accepted the cases considering they don’t even hear most cases suggests that they might have legal jurisdiction in these matters.

[CorpusChristie]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Why does the fading presidency of Mr. Trump have an interest in this case either way?

 

  Why did you feel the need to mention him ?

(The case is long going and he gave his opinion a long time ago)

What does Biden think about the case ?

[Thorgal]

“The Guelph Treasure originally consisted of 82 works and was purchased for a whopping 7.5 million Reichsmark in 1929 by dealers Zacharias Hackenbroch, Isaac Rosenbaum, Saemy Rosenberg, and Julius Falk Goldschmidt.

 

The Jewish dealers tried to sell the collection soon after they acquired it but the Great Depression was already taking its hold on the economy and they only sold about half to private dealers and collectors for around $2.5 million Reichsmark.

 

In 1935, they sold the remainder of the collection to the Prussian state for approximately $4.25 million Reichsmark. Soon after the final sale, three of the four dealers fled the country after the passage of the Nuremberg Laws.”

 

https://www.art-critique.com/en/2019/06/germany-appeals-ruling-on-the-guelph-treasure-in-us-court/

 

So you purchase art work valued at 7.5 million RM during the Great Depression in Germany.

 

They sold the art works for 6.75 million RM. They’ve lost only 0,75 million RM between 1929 and 1935.

 

Nuremberg laws against Jews were implemented in September 1935.

 

Was the 2nd part of the art works sold after implementation of the Nuremberg laws?

[Chomper Higgot]

Why is this even before the SCOTUS, it a matter between private individuals and foreign governments.

 

The governments concerned are all members of the EU, so the legal path seems to be, national courts, European court and perhaps international court.

 

The US has no jurisdiction.

[CorpusChristie]

19 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

“The Guelph Treasure originally consisted of 82 works and was purchased for a whopping 7.5 million Reichsmark in 1929 by dealers Zacharias Hackenbroch, Isaac Rosenbaum, Saemy Rosenberg, and Julius Falk Goldschmidt.

 

The Jewish dealers tried to sell the collection soon after they acquired it but the Great Depression was already taking its hold on the economy and they only sold about half to private dealers and collectors for around $2.5 million Reichsmark.

 

In 1935, they sold the remainder of the collection to the Prussian state for approximately $4.25 million Reichsmark. Soon after the final sale, three of the four dealers fled the country after the passage of the Nuremberg Laws.”

 

https://www.art-critique.com/en/2019/06/germany-appeals-ruling-on-the-guelph-treasure-in-us-court/

 

So you purchase art work valued at 7.5 million RM during the Great Depression in Germany.

 

They sold the art works for 6.75 million RM. They’ve lost only 0,75 million RM between 1929 and 1935.

 

Nuremberg laws against Jews were implemented in September 1935.

 

Was the 2nd part of the art works sold after implementation of the Nuremberg laws?

 

   I am with Trump and the Germans on this , the Jews are trying their luck 

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why is this even before the SCOTUS, it a matter between private individuals and foreign governments.

 

The governments concerned are all members of the EU, so the legal path seems to be, national courts, European court and perhaps international court.

 

The US has no jurisdiction.

Perhaps not but again I seriously doubt that the scotus would have even accepted the cases in the first place if they had concluded that they don't have jurisdiction.

 

To wit, according to this in a typical year the scotus only accepts about 80 of 10,000 submitted cases.

 

https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/how-does-the-u-s-supreme-court-decide-whether-to-hear-a-case.html

 

Why would they accept even one case that they don’t have jurisdiction over?

 

To add I don't know enough about the details to really have an informed opinion about which side should rightfully prevail in these particular cases.

 

May justice prevail.

[Thorgal]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

I dont like these claims 70 years after the fact.

 

The grandfather of the plaintiff didn’t proceed to justice.

The parents of the plaintiff didn’t proceed to justice.

 

Only the grandchildren are now claiming ownership.

 

Note: US court system could risk huge response of unlawful disposition of some +30.000 US (Japanese) citizens during WW2 on its own soil.

 

Many descendants could claim reparations.

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Perhaps not but again I seriously doubt that the scotus would have even accepted the cases in the first place if they had concluded that they don't have jurisdiction.

 

To wit, according to this in a typical year the scotus only accepts about 80 of 10,000 submitted cases.

 

https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/how-does-the-u-s-supreme-court-decide-whether-to-hear-a-case.html

 

Why would they accept even one case that they don’t have jurisdiction over?

 

To add I don't know enough about the details to really have an informed opinion about which side should rightfully prevail in these particular cases.

 

May justice prevail.

The issue seems to be the Sovereign Immunity  Act, Perhaps somebody feels there should be no ‘Sovereign Immunity’, though if that’s the case I doubt ‘US Sovereign Immunity’ would be questioned.

[Thorgal]

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  If they were able to do that, they would have already done it .

BTW , this story is about Hungarian & German Jews and art and that arts rightful ownership , this story is  nothing to do with Israel and the Palestinians 

 

“Decree for the Reporting of Jewish-Owned Property” issued on 26th of April 1938 by Hitler’s government took effect, requiring all Jews in both Germany and Austria to register any property or assets valued at more than 5,000 RM. 

 

From furniture and paintings to life insurance and stocks, nothing was immune from the registry.

 

The art works from OP were sold in 1935 to the Prussian state.

Long before the German  law of 1938 forcing Jewish owners of art to declare their possessions. Later, after the law of 1938, many Jewish properties were taken by The Nazis.

[placeholder]

26 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

   I am with Trump and the Germans on this , the Jews are trying their luck 

The Jews? You think this is an effort undertaken by worldwide Jewry?

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The Jews? You think this is an effort undertaken by worldwide Jewry?

Obviously not. People are often funny when it comes to Jews. The word Jew itself though technically simply descriptive is often used as a slur.

 

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/it-okay-say-jew

[bunnydrops]

45 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

   I am with Trump and the Germans on this , the Jews are trying their luck 

First you say why mention him and then you act like his opinion matters?

[placeholder]

38 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

“Decree for the Reporting of Jewish-Owned Property” issued on 26th of April 1938 by Hitler’s government took effect, requiring all Jews in both Germany and Austria to register any property or assets valued at more than 5,000 RM. 

 

From furniture and paintings to life insurance and stocks, nothing was immune from the registry.

 

The art works from OP were sold in 1935 to the Prussian state.

Long before the German  law of 1938 forcing Jewish owners of art to declare their possessions. Later, after the law of 1938, many Jewish properties were taken by The Nazis.

But the Nuremberg laws of 1935 stripped Jews of their citizenship. In fact, according to that law they were enemies of the state.

[Rimmer]

An inflammatory post has been removed

[Thorgal]

22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But the Nuremberg laws of 1935 stripped Jews of their citizenship. In fact, according to that law they were enemies of the state.

 

Correct.

But mass deportations to ghettos and concentration camps started in September 1941.

 

Art works from OP were purchased in 1929 during German economic crisis with high inflation and devaluation resulting from WW1.

The owners speculated huge benefits to sell these art works with the next economic growth.

 

 

Starting in 1938, the Nazis forced (by law) Jewish property and business owners into selling their assets, including artworks and art galleries, to non-Jews, under the “Aryanization” policy.

 

Some Jewish collectors sold their holdings to fund their escape from Germany.

 

German dealers stepped in 1938 into the art business to take advantage of fleeing families and Nazi allies who remained.

 

Again, the 2nd and last batch of art works of OP were sold in 1935 in Germany. The plaintiff never claimed that the Prussian state forced the sales in a period of poverty and economic crisis. After all, they’ve been paid and took the money.

 

The forced confiscations and sales started late 1938.

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Correct.

But mass deportations to ghettos and concentration camps started in September 1941.

 

Art works from OP were purchased in 1929 during German economic crisis with high inflation and devaluation resulting from WW1.

The owners speculated huge benefits to sell these art works with the next economic growth.

 

 

Starting in 1938, the Nazis forced (by law) Jewish property and business owners into selling their assets, including artworks and art galleries, to non-Jews, under the “Aryanization” policy.

 

Some Jewish collectors sold their holdings to fund their escape from Germany.

 

German dealers stepped in 1938 into the art business to take advantage of fleeing families and Nazi allies who remained.

 

Again, the 2nd and last batch of art works of OP were sold in 1935 in Germany. The plaintiff never claimed that the Prussian state forced the sales in a period of poverty and economic crisis. After all, they’ve been paid and took the money.

 

The forced confiscations and sales started late 1938.

Ya think maybe the fact that they had been stripped of their citizenship and things didn't look like they were going to get better, might have influenced their decision. And I noticed that the Supreme Court raised the question of stateless people.

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.  I suggest you stay on topic, which is about a US Supreme Court hearing. 

 

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Like or not like is irrelevant. As the Supreme Court accepted the cases considering they don’t even hear most cases suggests that they might have legal jurisdiction in these matters.

Good luck getting another govt to follow US law.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Good luck getting another govt to follow US law.

I'm not trying to do anything. 

[Thorgal]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Ya think maybe the fact that they had been stripped of their citizenship and things didn't look like they were going to get better, might have influenced their decision. And I noticed that the Supreme Court raised the question of stateless people.

 

Again correct.

 

Stripping of citizenship began with the 1933 'Law on the Revocation of Naturalisations and the Deprivation of the German Citizenship'.

 

This did not automatically deprive all Jews of their German citizenships.

Some Jews lost German citizenship when their naturalisations were revoked.

Later on,  natural-born German Jewish citizens were deprived of citizenship on an individual basis. 

Some Jews remained German and fought in the German army.

 

Most deprivations took place under the 25 November 1941 'Eleventh Decree to the Law on the Citizenship of the Reich'.

 

This law automatically stripped all Jewish Germans of their German citizenship if they had taken up residence abroad.

 

Not clear if the plaintiff wants to proceed by convincing the court that their citizenship was taken while they still could proceed with a mega sales of +4 million RM directly with the Prussian state in 1935.

 

[placeholder]

The parties in question didn't sell to the Prussian State. The items were sold to Goering and he gave them to the Prussian State.

As for the rest of the mitigatory stuff you're trying to shovel in the Nuremberg laws are very clear about who is and who isn't a Jewish citizen.

[Scott Tracy]

If I were the Hungarian or German (Prussian) governments. I would ignore any ruling made in any US Court.

Perhaps if the plaintiffs and the defendants were US citizens, this could fly. Sue in your own country first.

 

Just my opinion. 

 

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

If I were the Hungarian or German (Prussian) governments. I would ignore any ruling made in any US Court.

Perhaps if the plaintiffs and the defendants were US citizens, this could fly. Sue in your own country first.

 

Just my opinion. 

 

Why do you assume that the plaintiffs aren't US citizens?

[herfiehandbag]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

 

 

"President Donald Trump's administration has backed Germany and Hungary in the two cases."

 

---

 

Why does the fading presidency of Mr. Trump have an interest in this case either way?

Do you remember those marchers with torches chanting "The Jews will never replace us"?

 

"Some very fine people"!

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Do you remember those marchers with torches chanting "The Jews will never replace us"?

 

"Some very fine people"!

How could I forget?

[Scott Tracy]

28 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As for the rest of the mitigatory stuff you're trying to shovel in the Nuremberg laws are very clear about who is and who isn't a Jewish citizen.

 

Is there such a person as a Jewish citizen? I was of the understanding that citizenship was dependent upon internal political circumstances, one of which may be nationality.  You can be a national of a country, but may not be a citizen, who has full political, social and civil rights. 

 

So, my question remains. Is there such a person as a Jewish citizen?