October Term 2020 · Docket 19-351

Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act cover Holocaust-era property takings?

The dispute centers on whether U.S. courts can hear claims for property seized during the Holocaust.

Official caption
Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Germany's counsel argued the statute targets Communist states and denies compensation.

    The plaintiffs' counsel argued the statute covers property rights taken in violation of international law.

    The Solicitor General argued the U.S. encourages other countries to provide justice mechanisms.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It asks if the statute covers property rights taken in violation of international law during the Nazi era.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 7, 2020.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Germany wants the Court to dismiss the case and uphold its immunity.

The plaintiffs want the Court to allow their property claims to proceed in U.S. courts.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Germany argues the statute targets Communist states and does not cover Holocaust-era takings.

The plaintiffs argue the statute covers property rights taken in violation of international law.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if stripping citizenship before the taking changes the legal analysis.

Justice Breyer asked how a similar plaintiff recovered in a prior case.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the reach of U.S. jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns. It determines whether victims can seek redress for historical property losses in American courts.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON