The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could redefine the scope of foreign sovereign immunity in American courts, as Holocaust survivors seek justice against Hungary for property confiscated during World War II.
At a Glance
- Holocaust survivors are suing Hungary in U.S. courts for property seized during WWII
- The case challenges Hungary’s immunity as a foreign sovereign
- Oral arguments are expected in the Supreme Court by the end of 2024
- The outcome could impact how international legal disputes are handled in U.S. courts
- Survivors argue their case falls under an exception for property expropriation
A Long-Standing Battle for Justice
In a case that has spanned over a decade, Holocaust survivors and their heirs are pursuing legal action against Hungary for the confiscation of property during the Nazi era. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2010, targets the Hungarian government and its national railway for their role in the systematic theft and deportation that occurred in 1944, when Hungary collaborated with Nazi Germany to deport and kill over half a million Jews.
The case has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court for the second time, highlighting the complex legal challenges surrounding sovereign immunity and historical accountability. At the heart of the dispute is whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction over a foreign nation for actions that occurred decades ago on foreign soil.
The Legal Intricacies
The survivors’ legal team argues that their case falls under an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which generally protects foreign governments from lawsuits in U.S. courts. They contend that the exception for property expropriation applies, as there is a “commercial nexus” with the United States.
The survivors claim that Hungary mixed proceeds from stolen property with other funds, some of which are now in the United States and linked to Hungary’s commercial activities. This “commingling theory” is central to their argument for jurisdiction under U.S. law.
Hungary’s Defense and International Implications
Hungary, supported by Germany and the United States government, strongly opposes the lawsuit. The Hungarian government warns that removing foreign sovereign immunity in this case could open the floodgates to numerous lawsuits against foreign governments for historical grievances.
Hungary argues that allowing the case to proceed “will serve as a beacon for plaintiffs around the world to litigate all manner of historical grievances in domestic courts, and needlessly entangle the United States in disputes in which it has no legitimate connection.”
The case raises significant questions about the balance between seeking justice for historical atrocities and maintaining international legal norms. It also highlights the challenges of applying modern legal standards to events that occurred during one of history’s darkest periods.
The Road Ahead
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in Hungary v. Simon, the world watches closely. The decision could have far-reaching implications for how international legal disputes are handled in U.S. courts and may set a precedent for future cases involving historical injustices.
For the survivors, all of whom are at least 90 years old, this case represents perhaps their final opportunity to seek recognition and compensation for the crimes committed against them and their families. As the legal battle continues, it serves as a poignant reminder of the enduring quest for justice in the aftermath of the Holocaust.
Sources:
Supreme Court will review Holocaust survivors’ lawsuit against Hungary
At Supreme Court, Holocaust survivors seek right to sue for compensation of seized property
At Supreme Court, Holocaust survivors seek right to sue for compensation of seized property
