This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns allegations that Hungary seized property from Holocaust victims, an act described as genocide.
Background and question before the Court
Hungary took possessions necessary for survival from the plaintiffs, with the purpose of physically destroying Jews in Hungary, which the Court characterizes as genocide.
The United States government has identified a moral imperative to provide Holocaust victims with relief in their lifetime.
Justice Thomas asked whether the comity‑based abstention doctrine predates the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
According to Justice Kavanaugh, the court should consider other relevant facts and circumstances.
What each side argues
What happened at oral argument
Gregory Silbert argued that comity‑based abstention has been recognized since 1885 and that a federal court may decline jurisdiction in favor of a foreign tribunal when a complaint involves foreign parties harming other foreign parties abroad.
According to Gregory Silbert, the FSIA’s text concerns only sovereign immunity and does not affect prudential doctrines such as comity‑based abstention.
According to Mr. Silbert, gregory Silbert illustrated a hypothetical involving a piece of artwork in Washington, D.C., suggesting that if the possessor returns it to the wrong party, a U.S. party could become liable.
Ms. Harrington argued that Congress has already made foreign‑policy determinations regarding comity and that such decisions should rest with the elected branches, not the courts.
According to United States (Amicus Curiae), the United States (Amicus Curiae) noted that for over a century the Court has recognized that serious foreign‑relations concerns may justify abstention in favor of a foreign forum.
- [1] f6b243d2f12b51a26b2b-r1-5eba10fd4534b9b4.pdf, p. 4
- [2] f6b243d2f12b51a26b2b-r1-5eba10fd4534b9b4.pdf, p. 5
- [3] f6b243d2f12b51a26b2b-r1-5eba10fd4534b9b4.pdf, p. 23
- [4] f6b243d2f12b51a26b2b-r1-5eba10fd4534b9b4.pdf, p. 64
- [5] f6b243d2f12b51a26b2b-r1-5eba10fd4534b9b4.pdf, p. 65
- [6] f6b243d2f12b51a26b2b-r1-5eba10fd4534b9b4.pdf, p. 29
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case involves allegations that Hungary committed genocide by seizing property from Holocaust victims.
The moral imperative to provide Holocaust victims with relief, identified by the Solicitor General’s office, underscores the human stakes of the dispute.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- f6b243d2f12b51a26b2b-r1-5eba10fd4534b9b4.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.