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
According to Jonathan M. Freiman, petitioners contend that the 1976 ex‑propriation exception was created because Communist states were expropriating property from U.S. nationals without compensation.
Petitioners argue that Congress has not yet taken the risk of allowing Holocaust‑era claims, but it could if it chose to.
Respondents argue that the FSIA provides jurisdiction over cases where property is taken in violation of international law, and that this applies to Holocaust‑era takings.
According to United States (Amicus Curiae), according to United States (Amicus Curiae), the United States deplores the atrocities committed against victims of the Nazi regime and has long had a policy of encouraging Germany and other countries to provide mechanisms to afford a measure of justice.
Background and question before the Court
The Court is examining whether the FSIA’s ex‑propriation exception applies to takings that violate international law, including Holocaust‑era confiscations, and how sovereign immunity may affect such claims.
What each side argues
Petitioners (Federal Republic of Germany)
According to Jonathan M. Freiman, freiman notes that the 1976 expropriation exception was enacted amid concerns about Communist states expropriating property from U.S. nationals.
Petitioners assert that the Clarification Act’s language recognizing Nazi‑era looting shows congressional intent to permit these claims.
According to Mr. Freiman, petitioners argue that a remand is not appropriate if the ex‑propriation exception applies only to violations of the international law of takings.
Respondents (Alan Philipp)
Respondents argue that the FSIA provides jurisdiction over cases in which rights and property taken in violation of international law are at issue, and that this applies to the petitioners’ Holocaust‑era takings.
Respondents claim that the ordinary meaning of “rights and property taken in violation of international law” applies to the petitioners’ property takings during the Holocaust.
Respondents claim that the violation of the international norm does not itself cause the deprivation of property.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:24 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
The case was submitted at 12:52 p.m.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- a5c4f56c9760eae2aac2-r1-357e8872f65915e4.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.