Supreme Court Decision Impacts Holocaust Reparations in Hungary v. Simon

Classical building with columns and a statue outside.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Holocaust survivors cannot sue Hungary in American courts for asset seizures during World War II, citing a lack of commercial connection to the United States.

Quick Takes

Supreme Court blocks lawsuit against Hungary for Holocaust-era asset seizures
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous 9-0 opinion
Ruling cites lack of direct commercial nexus between seized property and U.S. business activity
Decision underscores limitations of U.S. courts in addressing historical injustices abroad
Survivors may still pursue legal remedies in other forums

Supreme Court’s Unanimous Decision

In a landmark ruling, the United States Supreme Court has unanimously decided that a group of Holocaust survivors and their families cannot sue Hungary in U.S. courts over asset seizures during World War II. The case, known as Republic of Hungary v. Simon, centered on the principles of sovereign immunity and the ability to seek reparations for historical injustices through the American legal system.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court, explained that the plaintiffs failed to establish a direct commercial connection between the seized property and business activities in the United States, a requirement under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) stating in the letter that “The issue presented in this case is whether alleging commingling of funds alone can satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the expropriation exception of the FSIA. The Court holds that it cannot.” This decision effectively bars the survivors from pursuing their claims in U.S. courts, highlighting the complex legal landscape surrounding international reparations cases.

The Supreme Court unanimously sided with Hungary on Friday by rejecting a group of Holocaust survivors’ legal theory that sought to haul the country into American courts to pay compensation. https://t.co/sFYcrZMS4l

— WOWK 13 News (@WOWK13News) February 22, 2025

Background of the Case

The lawsuit, initially filed in 2010, sought compensation for property confiscated during the Holocaust by Hungary and its state-owned railway system. The plaintiffs, comprising Holocaust survivors and their families, argued that Hungary had sold the confiscated property and used the proceeds for commercial activities in the United States, thereby establishing a connection that would allow them to sue under U.S. law.

The case had a complex journey through the U.S. legal system. Initially, a federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, citing a peace treaty between the United States and Hungary. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed this decision, allowing the case to proceed. The Supreme Court’s ruling now overturns the appeals court’s decision, dealing a significant blow to the plaintiffs’ efforts to seek justice through U.S. courts.

Legal Implications and Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of the FSIA’s expropriation exception, which allows lawsuits against foreign nations if the property in question has a commercial nexus to the United States. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the commingling of seized funds with Hungarian government funds connected to U.S. activities was sufficient to establish this nexus.

Justice Sotomayor emphasized that the commingling theory proposed by the survivors did not meet the legal requirements for establishing a commercial connection. This ruling sets a precedent that could make it more challenging for similar lawsuits involving historical injustices to proceed in U.S. courts, especially when the alleged wrongdoing occurred in foreign countries without direct ties to American commercial interests.

Future Implications and Alternatives

While the Supreme Court’s decision is a setback for the plaintiffs in this case, it does not entirely close the door on their pursuit of justice. The Court clarified that its ruling only pertains to the ability to bring such claims in U.S. courts and does not preclude the possibility of seeking legal redress in other forums.

This ruling underscores the challenges faced by Holocaust survivors and their descendants in seeking reparations for historical injustices. It also highlights the limitations of using the U.S. legal system to address complex international disputes, particularly those involving sovereign nations and events that occurred decades ago. As the case returns to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion, the plaintiffs may need to explore alternative legal strategies or international forums to continue their quest for justice and restitution.