logo
US Supreme Court blocks Holocaust victims from suing Hungary in American courts

US Supreme Court blocks Holocaust victims from suing Hungary in American courts

Yahoo21-02-2025

A group of Holocaust victims may not sue Hungary in American courts to recover property stolen during World War II because their funds were comingled with other funds, the Supreme Court ruled Friday in a long-running case about how much reach US courts should have to settle disputes abroad.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.
Sotomayor, quoting from a brief filed by the government, noted that 'the moral imperative has been and continues to be to provide some measure of justice to the victims of the Holocaust, and to do so in their remaining lifetimes.'
But, she added, respecting the limits on people suing foreign governments in US courts 'aids in the United States' efforts to persuade foreign nations to establish appropriate redress and compensation mechanisms for human-rights violations.'
The court stressed that the victims might be able to bring their claims some other way, just not based strictly on the theory they relied on in this case.
More than a dozen Holocaust victims and their families have been fighting the Republic of Hungary and its national railway for nearly 15 years over whether they may continue their lawsuit in federal court. Such lawsuits aimed at foreign governments are generally prohibited, but the victims wanted the Supreme Court to apply an exception to the rule in their case.
That exception allows such lawsuits to proceed when expropriated property is present in the United States. In this case, the survivors claimed that the artwork, jewelry and other possessions stripped from Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust was sold and that the proceeds wound up within the United States through the course of its trade with Hungary.
'It is true that, because money is fungible, it will likely be difficult to trace cash from the sale of expropriated property after it is commingled,' Sotomayor wrote. But, she said, the law requires tracing specific property. 'When a foreign sovereign is responsible for the expropriation, a suit may proceed only if the property is 'present in the United States.''
Throughout the oral arguments in December, several justices said they were concerned about the potential international fallout from allowing the case to proceed – specifically, that foreign nationals in other countries could bring lawsuits against the United States in foreign courts. That was precisely the concern raised by the Biden administration, which sided with Hungary in the dispute. The Justice Department warned that a ruling for the survivors would 'invite reciprocal actions against the United States in foreign courts.'
The 1939 Society, an organization of Holocaust survivors, described that argument as a 'surprising abdication of America's historic leadership role in obtaining redress for Holocaust victims.'
American courts, the group said, are the 'the only viable venue' to bring such claims.
That argument found some purchase on the Supreme Court in December, particularly from Justice Samuel Alito, who suggested that any reciprocal claims against the United States in foreign courts would be limited. Others feared that blocking the lawsuit would provide a roadmap to a foreign government attempting to expropriate property and avoid accountability in US courts: Quickly sell the property and comingle the proceeds with other government funding.
The victims filed their lawsuit in 2010, and the case has been bouncing around federal courts for so long that it previously reached the Supreme Court four years ago. In that instance, the justices ultimately sent the matter back to lower courts for additional review – tossing out a federal appeals court ruling for the families in the process.
A federal appeals court in Washington, DC, sided with the victims last year, and Hungary appealed to the Supreme Court.
CNN's Devan Cole contributed to this report.
This story has been updated with additional details.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots
LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots

The images of cars set ablaze, protesters tossing rocks at police and officers firing nonlethal rounds and tear gas at protesters hearkens back to the last time a president sent the National Guard to respond to violence on Los Angeles streets. But the unrest during several days of protests over immigration enforcement is far different in scale from the 1992 riots that followed the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to call in the National Guard after requests from Mayor Tom Bradley and Gov. Pete Wilson. After the current protests began Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines despite strident opposition from Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump cited a legal provision to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Monday saying Trump had overstepped his authority. Outrage over the verdicts on April 29, 1992 led to nearly a week of widespread violence that was one of the deadliest riots in American history. Hundreds of businesses were looted. Entire blocks of homes and stores were torched. More than 60 people died in shootings and other violence, mostly in South Los Angeles, an area with a heavily Black population at the time. Unlike the 1992 riots, protests have mainly been peaceful and been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny patch in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people. No one has died. There's been vandalism and some cars set on fire but no homes or buildings have burned. At least 50 people have been arrested for everything from failing to follow orders to leave to looting, assault on a police officer and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Several officers have had minor injuries and protesters and some journalists have been struck by some of the more than 600 rubber bullets and other 'less-lethal' munitions fired by police. The 1992 uprising took many by surprise, including the Los Angeles Police Department, but the King verdict was a catalyst for racial tensions that had been building in the city for years. In addition to frustration with their treatment by police, some directed their anger at Korean merchants who owned many of the local stores. Black residents felt the owners treated them more like shoplifters than shoppers. As looting and fires spread toward Koreatown, some merchants protected their stores with shotguns and rifles.

It Sure Seems Like One Key GOP Vote Regrets Appointing RFK Jr.
It Sure Seems Like One Key GOP Vote Regrets Appointing RFK Jr.

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

It Sure Seems Like One Key GOP Vote Regrets Appointing RFK Jr.

Senator Bill Cassidy promised the American people that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would not make any changes to the CDC's vaccine advisory committee when he cast his decisive confirmation vote for the HHS secretary. But on Monday RFK Jr. scrapped the board entirely, leaving Cassidy scrambling to explain himself and his vote. 'Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' Cassidy posted on X after Kennedy explained his rationale in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.' When asked what he said specifically to Kennedy to 'ensure' that the immunization advisory committee wouldn't be run by anti-vaxers, Cassidy went mum. 'I'd rather just characterize it as: we had a conversation,' he told Semafor's Burgess Everett on Tuesday. When Burgess asked if Cassidy was 'still comfortable' with voting to confirm RFK Jr. in February, Cassidy replied 'I'd rather not comment on that.' During the confirmation process Cassidy explicitly guaranteed that 'If confirmed, [RFK Jr.] will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes.' Either Cassidy was lying, or RFK Jr. was lying to Cassidy. Now all of the other promises that Cassidy made on RFK's behalf—like not making false claims about vaccines causing autism, or even appearing before Congress on a quarterly basis—are moot. Cassidy claimed that he studied his decision to confirm Kennedy 'exhaustively' and took it 'very seriously.' It's clear that Cassidy's words meant nothing as Kennedy guts a key institution of our national health apparatus.

Homeless people may be arrested after refusing offers of shelter in Silicon Valley

timean hour ago

Homeless people may be arrested after refusing offers of shelter in Silicon Valley

SAN FRANCISCO -- Homeless people who reject three offers of shelter could be arrested under a controversial proposal before the city council of the most populous city in California's Silicon Valley on Tuesday. The proposal being pushed by San Jose Mayor Matt Mahon is eye-opening because it comes from a liberal city headed by a Democrat in the left-leaning San Francisco Bay Area. It is among the stricter anti-encampment deterrents proposed by elected officials since the Supreme Court in 2023 made it easier to ban homeless people from camping on public property. And it's another sign of just how frustrated people have become with squalid tents lining sidewalks and riverbanks, and erratic behavior of those using drugs or in distress in a state with an estimated 187,000 homeless people. California is home to roughly a quarter of all homeless people in the country. Mahan says most people do accept offers of shelter. But he wants to make clear to the small percentage of people who refuse, that as the city builds more shelter and interim housing, they have a responsibility to move indoors. 'I think we need a cultural change, a culture of accountability for everyone involved,' said Mahan. 'I don't want to use the criminal justice system to make vulnerable people's lives harder. I want to use it as a last resort.' California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and former mayor of San Francisco, has repeatedly urged cities to ban encampments. Arrests for illegal lodging have soared in San Francisco, and its current mayor, Daniel Lurie, has reiterated that it is not appropriate for people to live outdoors. Advocates for homeless people say cracking down on encampments is traumatizing and even counterproductive. Forcing a person to clear out sets them back in their search for stability as they could lose important documents needed to apply for work and housing, they said. 'Pushing people with mental health needs or drug addiction into incarceration — without any crime committed — is both inhumane and ineffective,' said Otto Lee, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in a written statement emailed Monday to The Associated Press. Lee and other county leaders are opposed to the mayor's proposal. They say they need more housing, beds and services, and not punishment. The 'responsibility to shelter' proposal does not mandate an arrest after three rejected offers. After talking with the city attorney's office and police, Mahan said it made more sense to give front-line outreach workers and police officers discretion to decide when to escalate or prioritize a situation. The city will set up a new six-officer quality of life unit within the police department. 'We don't want to overly tie their hands and tell them this is the only way to do it,' the mayor said. People who repeatedly violate the city's encampment code of conduct — which also includes keeping tents free of trash and not blocking the public right of way — could be sent to a recovery center for detox or petitioned for court-mandated treatment to mental health and substance use disorder care, Mahan said. San Jose has nearly 1,400 shelter spots and hopes to add another 800 by the end of the year. Officials are aware they do not have enough beds, and Mahan said that people will not be punished if beds are unavailable or the only options are unsuitable.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store