## Facts

- Marei von Saher, heir to Dutch Jewish art dealer Jacques Goudstikker, claimed ownership of two Lucas Cranach the Elder paintings (*Adam* and *Eve*).
- During World War II, the paintings were taken from Goudstikker’s widow, Desi, through a forced sale and acquired by Nazi official Hermann Göring.
- After the war, the paintings were returned to the Dutch government as part of postwar restitution administration.
- Desi did not pursue a postwar Dutch restitution claim for the Cranachs, reportedly based on advice that claiming would require repayment of the purchase price.
- In 1966, the Netherlands transferred the paintings to George Stroganoff-Sherbatoff pursuant to a restitution claim he asserted; he sold them to the Norton Simon entities in 1971.
- Von Saher later sought restoration of rights in the Netherlands; a Dutch court denied relief in 1999, and a Dutch ministry later stated in 2006 that her claim had been settled.
- In U.S. litigation over the paintings, the district court ultimately granted summary judgment to the Museum, holding the act of state doctrine barred the claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the act of state doctrine barred adjudication of von Saher’s ownership claims because success would require a U.S. court to declare invalid official acts of the Netherlands concerning the paintings.
2. Whether the Dutch transfer and later Dutch decisions regarding the paintings constituted sovereign acts within the Netherlands’ territory, rather than purely commercial conduct.
3. Whether any exception to the act of state doctrine applied, including an executive-branch statement (Bernstein-type), treaty or international-law limits, or a Holocaust-restoration public-policy exception.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena and the Norton Simon Art Foundation.
- The court held the act of state doctrine applied because von Saher’s claims required treating as invalid multiple official Dutch acts performed within Dutch territory, including the 1966 transfer to Stroganoff and later Dutch determinations rejecting or settling von Saher’s asserted rights.
- The court rejected characterization of the relevant Dutch conduct as merely commercial, concluding it occurred in the course of the Netherlands’ sovereign administration of postwar restitution.
- The court found no applicable exception: there was no clear executive-branch authorization to disregard the Dutch acts; no treaty or international-law basis compelling U.S. courts to invalidate the Dutch actions; and no judicially created Holocaust-specific carve-out.
- A concurring judge agreed the act of state doctrine compelled affirmance, while expressing the view that foreign affairs preemption should have ended the case earlier.

## Legal Principles

- Under the act of state doctrine, U.S. courts generally treat as valid the official acts of a foreign sovereign performed within its own territory and will not sit in judgment on their validity.
- The doctrine applies where adjudication would necessarily require a U.S. court to declare a foreign sovereign’s official act ineffective, including acts taken through a sovereign restitution regime and subsequent sovereign determinations of rights.
- A foreign state’s administration and disposition of property within a postwar restitution framework may constitute sovereign acts, even if a transfer involves a sale.
- Exceptions to the doctrine require a clear basis (such as an explicit executive-branch statement or controlling legal authority); generalized policy concerns, including the moral force of Holocaust-era claims, do not alone permit a court to disregard foreign sovereign acts.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the act of state doctrine barred the heir’s effort to recover Holocaust-era looted paintings because resolving title in her favor would require invalidating the Netherlands’ sovereign restitution-related transfer and later official determinations that her claim had been denied and settled.


Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 897 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2018)