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

After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality
After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality

Donald Trump clearly wants the public to believe he recently struck a trade deal with China. The president did not actually reach such an agreement, but he's leaned into his fictional narrative with great enthusiasm lately. Last Thursday, for example, the Republican published an item to his social media platform, noting that he'd spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about 'the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.' Soon after, during an Oval Office event, he again touted the same 'trade deal.' A day later, Trump posted a follow-up item, announcing the members of a delegation who would travel to London to meet with Chinese officials about 'the Trade Deal.' The bad news is that the 'trade deal' in question does not exist, no matter how many times the American president pretends otherwise. The good news is that administration officials will actually have some discussions with their Chinese counterparts. NBC News reported: Senior U.S. and Chinese officials will meet in London on Monday in an effort to de-escalate the bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies that has roiled the global economy, with China's restrictions on critical minerals high on the agenda. About a month ago, Trump announced what he characterized as a 'deal' with China, but the closer one looked at the details, the more the truth came into focus. Georgetown University professor Abraham Newman wrote a great piece for MSNBC that explained, "While the U.S. did avoid a major economic calamity, this is not a deal. The U.S. blinked. ... Far from some diplomatic coup, the U.S. climb down reflects the economic risks of maintaining such high tariffs.' The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal came to the same conclusion, noting, '[T]he China deal is more surrender than Trump victory.' Complicating matters, while the White House and Beijing reached a tentative agreement that paused the two countries' tit-for-tat tariffs, both countries have since accused each other of violating the agreement. All of which brings to mind Peter Navarro, the White House's top trade adviser, who boasted in April, 'We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days.' Navarro added that such a plan 'is possible' in part because 'the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.' Roughly two months later, the grand total currently stands at zero. Generous observers might be inclined to give Trump credit for striking a deal with the U.K., but as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank summarized in his latest column, that deal is really more of a 'vaguely phrased framework with Britain that still hasn't been made public.' What's more, a new Politico report added that a month after the agreement was announced, the U.S.-U.K. duties 'remain in place' and 'there is still no clear timeline for when they'll lift.' Or to put it another way, two-thirds of the way into the '90 deals in 90 days' vow, the White House appears to be 90 deals short. Undeterred, Navarro returned to Fox Business late last week, where he was asked when the public should expect to see some breakthroughs. 'We will have deals,' Navarro said. 'It takes time. Usually, it takes months and years. In this administration, it's gonna take more like days.' On average, the typical timeframe for a U.S. trade deal is roughly 30 months. That didn't deter Navarro from pushing the '90 deals in 90 days' talking point in April, and it apparently didn't stop him from claiming again last week that Team Trump will produce amazing results in a matter of days. The White House's top trade adviser should be going out of his way right now to lower expectations after already having set an impossibly high bar. For reasons unknown, Navarro is doing the opposite, setting up the Trump administration for additional failure. This article was originally published on

Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'
Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: ‘BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'

President Donald Trump called for the military to be deployed against anti-Immigrations and Customs Enforcements (ICE) protests in Los Angeles, California. The protests, which began in response to ICE raids at various workplaces on Friday, escalated over the weekend after Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops into the city over the objections of Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom, both Democrats. 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' Trump wrote early Monday morning on Truth Social. In another post, the president called for law enforcement to 'ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!' U.S. Northern Command issued a statement on Sunday indicating that 'approximately 500 Marines from 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines at Twentynine Palms, California, are in a prepared to deploy status should they be necessary to augment and support the DoD's protection of federal property and personnel efforts.' The call from the president to deploy the military against U.S. citizens — a power that hasn't been invoked by a president since the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles — would be a serious escalation of federal involvement in what local authorities say remains a manageable, if in sporadic instances violent, outbreak of public protest. Some Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials have indicated their support for the deployment of military personnel to California. On Sunday night, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) shared a screenshot of a controversial opinion piece he wrote in 2020 calling for the military to be deployed against Black Lives Matter protests. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote on social media Sunday night that 'if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' The president and his administration have targeted Los Angeles and several other so-called 'sanctuary cities' — cities and other state or local jurisdictions that limit its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement — as sites to conduct highly publicized ICE raids on immigrant communities. While the administration claims that they are focusing enforcement actions on criminals, Acting ICE Director Tom Homan admitted on Monday that ICE has been sweeping up migrants who just so happened to be at the location of one of their targets, including mothers, high school students, and migrants arriving to immigration court for scheduled hearings. As the administration's enforcement actions grow in intensity, and stray from the bounds of legality, Trump and his allies have claimed protests against their increasingly authoritarian tactics are effectively an illegal impediment to federal operations. 'A once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals. Now violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations,' Trump wrote on Sunday in a post that bears little resemblance to what is actually happening in the city. 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free.' In a Sunday press conference, Mayor Bass said that 'what we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that has been provoked by the administration.' 'When you're at Home Depot and workplaces, when you tear parents and children apart, and when you run armored caravans to our streets you cause fear and you cause panic and deploying federalized troops is a dangerous escalation,' Bass said. 'We need to be real about this, this is about another agenda, it's not about public safety.' Bass added that the city remained committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of protesters, but that those legal protections 'do not give you the right to be violent to create chaos are to be violent to create chaos are to vandalize property.' Governor Newsom formally requested on Sunday that Trump revoke his federalization of the National Guard and withdraw them from the city. 'In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, State and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property. Indeed, the decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation,' he wrote. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' Newsom added. More from Rolling Stone Finneas Says He Was Tear-Gassed During 'Very Peaceful' ICE Protest in L.A. ABC News Suspends Journalist for Calling Stephen Miller and Trump 'World-Class Haters' Republicans Say They're Cool With Trump Deploying Troops Against Protesters Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence

New Trump travel ban takes effect
New Trump travel ban takes effect

The Hill

time34 minutes ago

  • The Hill

New Trump travel ban takes effect

President Trump's travel ban targeting a dozen countries went into effect on Monday, the latest step by the White House to crack down on the number of individuals entering the U.S. The new policy fully restricts the entry into the United States of nationals from Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also partially restricts entry into the U.S. for nationals coming from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The policy makes exceptions for nationals from all 19 of those countries who are lawful permanent residents of the United States or existing visa holders and individuals 'whose entry serves U.S. national interests.' The travel ban is taking effect amid rising tensions in Los Angeles around immigration raids in the city. Trump and White House officials have argued the travel restrictions are based on national security concerns, specifically with vetting procedures involving the listed countries. Trump's attempts to restrict entry into the United States from certain Muslim-majority countries in his first term drew legal challenges and protests at airports across the country. This time around, experts have suggested he is likely on firmer legal footing in part because of a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the third version of his first-term ban and in part because the administration laid the groundwork with an executive order focused on enhanced vetting.

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