## Facts

- Jacob Sampson, a Holocaust survivor and U.S. citizen living in Chicago, alleged persecution including imprisonment in the Łódź ghetto, transport to Auschwitz, forced labor, and the killing of his family by the Gestapo.
- Germany and the Claims Conference entered 1952 protocols creating postwar compensation arrangements for victims of Nazi persecution.
- Under Protocol No. 1, Germany committed to take steps within its constitutional competence to carry out a restitution program and later enacted the German Federal Indemnification Law.
- Under Protocol No. 2, Germany agreed to pay Israel DM 450 million for the benefit of the Claims Conference to be used for relief, rehabilitation, and resettlement of Jewish victims outside Israel, according to urgency of need.
- Protocol No. 2 provided for disputes about disbursement to be handled through an arbitral commission between Israel and Germany.
- Sampson sued Germany for damages arising from his wartime persecution and sued the Claims Conference (including the Article 2 Fund) seeking reparations and challenging the denial or administration of benefits.
- The district court dismissed the claims against Germany for lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and dismissed the claims against the Claims Conference for lack of standing.

## Issues

1. Whether Germany was immune from suit under the FSIA, or whether any FSIA exception applied based on waiver or the asserted presence of jus cogens violations.
2. Whether Sampson had Article III standing to sue the Claims Conference concerning administration and distribution of reparations funds.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- Germany was immune under the FSIA because no statutory exception applied.
- Germany did not explicitly or implicitly waive immunity by entering postwar protocols or by acknowledging responsibility for Nazi wrongs.
- The court declined to recognize a jus cogens-based exception to FSIA immunity absent congressional authorization.
- Sampson lacked standing to sue the Claims Conference because he did not have an enforceable legal entitlement to a particular distribution from the funds, which were allocated with substantial administrator discretion and subject to an agreed arbitral dispute mechanism.

## Legal Principles

- The FSIA provides the exclusive basis for jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. courts; a foreign state is presumptively immune unless a statutory exception applies.
- FSIA waiver requires clear evidence of intent to submit to U.S. jurisdiction; broad commitments to reparations or moral responsibility do not, by themselves, constitute waiver.
- U.S. courts will not create a nonstatutory FSIA exception for alleged violations of jus cogens norms; any such exception must come from Congress.
- Article III standing requires a concrete, legally protected interest; a claimant lacks standing where the asserted benefit is governed by discretionary allocation under international arrangements and disputes are routed to specified nonjudicial mechanisms.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Germany remained immune from suit under the FSIA and that a Holocaust survivor could not obtain judicial review in U.S. courts of the Claims Conference’s administration of reparations funds absent a legally enforceable individual entitlement and redressable injury.


Sampson v. Fed. Republic of Ger., 250 F.3d 1145 (7th Cir. 2001)