October Term 2003 · Docket 03-13
Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act apply to pre-1976 property seizures?
Austrian citizens seek to recover art seized by the Nazis. Austria claims sovereign immunity blocks the claim.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Scott Cooper argued for Austria. He cited the Landgraf case. He claimed Congress did not direct retroactive application of the Act.
Paul Hungar argued for the United States. He stated sovereign immunity bars pre-1976 expropriation claims. He emphasized the consistent position of the U.S. government.
Alan Schoenberg argued for Altmann. He listed four grounds for affirming the lower court. He argued the Act regulates jurisdiction, not primary conduct.
Cooper responded to a question about the Dralle case. He argued that case does not support second-guessing expropriation in Austria.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 9-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Maria Altmann sued Austria in U.S. courts. She sought to recover art her family lost during World War II. Austria argued the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply to pre-1976 events. The lower court allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Austria asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 27-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 25, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 9-11
What each side wants
Austria wants the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court. It seeks to dismiss the lawsuit based on sovereign immunity.
Altmann wants the Supreme Court to affirm the lower court. She seeks to keep her lawsuit alive in U.S. courts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 27-7
What each side says
Austria argues the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply retroactively. It claims Congress did not intend to cover pre-1976 events.
Altmann argues the Act regulates jurisdiction, not underlying conduct. She contends the law does not operate retrospectively.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 27-7
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the Dralle case supports second-guessing expropriation in Austria.
The Court asked about the applicability of the Act to pre-enactment events.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 9-11
Why it matters
This case determines whether U.S. courts can hear claims about property seized before 1976. It defines the scope of sovereign immunity for foreign states. It impacts how victims of historical seizures seek redress in American courts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 27-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 9-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 49-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 49-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 27-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.