## Facts

- Holocaust survivors, heirs, and representatives filed putative class actions against German corporations, including Degussa AG and Siemens AG.
- Plaintiffs alleged they (or their decedents) were subjected to slave or forced labor for German industry under Nazi control, including in camp-related facilities.
- Plaintiffs alleged Degussa refined precious metals taken from victims, including jewelry, dental gold, and other property seized from concentration-camp inmates.
- Plaintiffs further alleged Degussa produced Zyklon B with knowledge it would be used in gas chambers.
- Claims were pleaded under customary international law (including prohibitions on slavery, forced labor, genocide, and crimes against humanity) and under German civil law theories seeking damages and restitution.
- Defendants argued that post–World War II treaties, executive agreements, and reparations programs constituted a comprehensive settlement framework that displaced or barred private litigation in U.S. courts.
- The actions were consolidated in federal district court, and defendants moved to dismiss, emphasizing justiciability and foreign-relations concerns.

## Issues

1. Whether Holocaust-era forced-labor, personal-injury, and expropriation claims against private German corporations present nonjusticiable political questions due to the constitutional allocation of foreign-affairs powers to the political branches.
2. Whether post–World War II treaties, executive agreements, and reparations programs addressing Nazi-era claims effectively subsumed or displaced these private claims, making judicial adjudication inappropriate.
3. Whether adjudicating the claims would interfere with U.S. foreign-relations policy and ongoing diplomatic efforts concerning Holocaust-era settlements.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss.
- It held the claims were nonjusticiable political questions because resolving them would require the judiciary to revisit matters historically committed to the Executive and Congress, including war reparations and postwar economic settlements.
- The court concluded that the extensive postwar reparations and claims-resolution framework reflected political-branch decisions about compensation and allocation, and private litigation risked undermining those decisions.
- The court emphasized separation-of-powers concerns and the danger of judicial action complicating U.S. foreign relations, particularly in the context of ongoing diplomatic negotiations.
- The dismissal was not a merits determination of the alleged wrongdoing; it rested on institutional and justiciability grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Claims that would require courts to reassess or alter foreign-policy settlements and reparations arrangements may be barred by the political-question doctrine.
- War reparations and postwar claims allocation are areas typically handled through political-branch action (treaties, executive agreements, legislation), limiting the judiciary’s role in later private suits.
- Even when plaintiffs allege violations of customary international law norms, courts may decline to provide a private judicial remedy if the remedial framework has been addressed through comprehensive political settlements and diplomatic mechanisms.
- When adjudication risks conflicting with or disrupting the political branches’ management of foreign relations, dismissal may be warranted on justiciability grounds.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Holocaust-era forced-labor and property-related claims against Degussa and Siemens, holding that the litigation raised nonjusticiable political questions in light of the postwar reparations regime and the foreign-relations responsibilities of the political branches.


Burger-Fischer v. Degussa AG, 65 F. Supp. 2d 248 (D.N.J. 1999)