October Term 2024 · Docket 23-867

Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allow plaintiffs to seize Hungarian funds mixed with other assets?

Plaintiffs seek to recover Holocaust-era property from Hungary. Hungary claims sovereign immunity blocks the suit.

Official caption
Hungary v. Simon
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

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

    Mr. Glasgow argued Hungary and its railway are immune from suit. He stated the expropriation exception requires property to be exchanged for the stolen assets.

    Mr. Dvoretzky argued Hungary lacks immunity for stealing property during the Holocaust. He stated the exception applies when a state possesses the expropriated property or property exchanged for it.

    Mr. Joshi argued the commingling theory lacks support in the statute text. He noted words like that property and such property imply specific, identifiable assets.

    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 expropriation exception to sovereign immunity. The core dispute involves whether specific property requirements apply when funds are commingled.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 3, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Hungary wants the Court to dismiss the case. It argues the law requires specific, identifiable property for the exception to apply.

Simon wants the Court to allow the suit to continue. It argues the exception covers property exchanged for the stolen assets.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Hungary argues the statute text demands specific, identifiable property. It contends commingled funds do not meet this legal standard.

Simon argues the exception applies to property exchanged for the stolen assets. It contends the commercial nexus requirement is satisfied.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Barrett asked how Hungary bears the burden of persuasion if sovereign immunity is jurisdictional.

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the argument holds when an account holds mostly appropriated funds and some other funds.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the reach of sovereign immunity for foreign states. It determines whether plaintiffs can access mixed financial accounts in U.S. courts. The outcome shapes future claims involving state-owned entities and historical property disputes.

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

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

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

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

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

Download this sanitized case as JSON