## Facts

- A consortium of Jewish-owned art firms in Frankfurt acquired the Welfenschatz (Guelph Treasure), a collection of medieval religious artifacts.
- In 1935, under Nazi rule, the consortium allegedly sold the remaining portion of the collection to the State of Prussia for substantially below fair market value after coercion and threats.
- The collection later came under the custody of a German cultural foundation instrumentality and was displayed in a Berlin museum.
- The heirs sought restitution in Germany; an advisory body recommended against restitution.
- The heirs then sued Germany and the foundation in federal court in Washington, D.C., asserting property-based claims and invoking the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) expropriation exception.

## Issues

1. Whether the FSIA expropriation exception for “rights in property taken in violation of international law,” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3), abrogates immunity for a foreign sovereign’s taking of its own nationals’ property when the taking is alleged to be part of genocide.
2. Whether, if FSIA jurisdiction exists, a court may dismiss or abstain on international comity grounds.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously held that § 1605(a)(3)’s reference to property “taken in violation of international law” incorporates the international law of expropriation.
- Under the domestic-takings rule, a sovereign’s taking of its own nationals’ property is not a violation of the international law of expropriation.
- Allegations that the taking occurred as part of genocide do not convert a domestic taking into an expropriation “in violation of international law” for purposes of the FSIA exception.
- The Court vacated the judgment below and remanded for further proceedings; it did not decide the international comity question.

## Legal Principles

- The FSIA is the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. courts; an exception must be satisfied to overcome immunity.
- In § 1605(a)(3), “rights in property taken in violation of international law” refers to established expropriation rules, not to any international-law violation associated with the events surrounding the taking.
- The domestic-takings rule remains the baseline in interpreting the expropriation exception: takings from a state’s own nationals generally do not violate international expropriation law.
- Labeling a domestic taking as part of genocide does not, by itself, satisfy the “taken in violation of international law” element of § 1605(a)(3).
- Statutory amendments addressing art-related commercial-activity nexus requirements do not expand the “violation of international law” element to reach domestic takings.

## Conclusion

The Court limited the FSIA expropriation exception to takings that violate the international law of expropriation and reaffirmed that a sovereign’s taking of its own nationals’ property falls outside that category, even when the taking is alleged to have been part of genocidal persecution.


Fed. Republic of Ger. v. Philipp, 592 U.S. 169 (2021)