## Facts

- Plaintiffs, Austrian Jews and their heirs, alleged that during 1938–1945 Austria and related entities confiscated or benefitted from Nazi-era takings of Jewish property without adequate compensation.
- Defendants included the Republic of Austria, Dorotheum GmbH & Co. KG (an Austrian auction house), Österreichische Industrieholding AG (ÖIAG), and other Austrian instrumentalities and entities.
- Plaintiffs sued in the Southern District of New York seeking damages and other relief for Holocaust-era property deprivations.
- In 2001, the United States and Austria concluded an executive agreement (via diplomatic notes) creating the General Settlement Fund (GSF) as an exclusive compensation mechanism for Nazi-era and World War II–related claims against Austria and Austrian companies.
- The United States filed a Statement of Interest asserting that U.S. foreign policy favored the GSF as the exclusive remedy and that ongoing litigation threatened full implementation of the fund.

## Issues

1. Whether, given the U.S.–Austria executive agreement establishing the GSF and the Executive Branch’s Statement of Interest, plaintiffs’ claims present a nonjusticiable political question.
2. Whether a court may dismiss on political question grounds even if jurisdiction might exist under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court and ordered dismissal.
- The court held the claims were nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine because adjudication would interfere with the Executive Branch’s conduct of foreign relations.
- Applying Baker v. Carr factors, the court emphasized that negotiating and implementing a comprehensive foreign compensation arrangement is committed to the political branches and that judicial resolution would require policy judgments about displacing a diplomatic settlement.
- The court gave substantial weight to the executive agreement’s “exclusive remedy” structure and the United States’ specific representation that the litigation jeopardized implementation of the GSF.
- The court declined to reach FSIA immunity questions, reasoning that political question justiciability is a threshold limit even where jurisdiction may otherwise exist.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts must dismiss a case as a political question when adjudication would intrude upon foreign-relations functions constitutionally assigned to the political branches.
- In foreign-affairs contexts, courts may give substantial, case-specific weight to the Executive Branch’s articulated foreign-policy interests, particularly where a formal executive agreement provides a comprehensive settlement framework.
- Even if subject-matter jurisdiction might be available under the FSIA, a court may not proceed if the dispute is nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine.
- Where the United States and a foreign sovereign establish a comprehensive compensation fund intended as an exclusive remedy, litigation that would undermine that settlement may be treated as presenting separation-of-powers concerns warranting dismissal.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit dismissed Holocaust-era restitution claims against Austria and related entities as a political question because a U.S.–Austria executive agreement created an exclusive compensation fund and the Executive Branch asserted that continued litigation would interfere with implementing that diplomatic resolution.


Whiteman v. Dorotheum GmbH & Co. KG, 431 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2005)