Court deals blow to Holocaust survivors' lawsuit against Hungary
A unanimous Supreme Court on Friday dealt a severe blow to Holocaust survivors and their families in a long-running lawsuit seeking compensation from Hungary for property confiscated during World War II.
The justices threw out an appeals court ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to continue despite a federal law that generally shields sovereign nations like Hungary from suits in U.S. courts.
The high court heard arguments in December in Hungary's latest bid to end the lawsuit filed in 2010 by survivors, all of whom are now over 90, and heirs of survivors. Some survived being sent to the Auschwitz death camp in what was German-occupied Poland.
The appeals court had held that the survivors satisfied the exception the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act makes for 'property taken in violation of international law.' To qualify, the survivors must be able to show that the property has some commercial tie to the United States.
The survivors had argued that Hungary long ago sold off the property, mixed the proceeds with its general funds, and used that commingled money to issue bonds and buy military equipment in the U.S. in the 2000s.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court, said that 'a commingling theory, without more" doesn't satisfy the law's requirements.
The court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but it's unclear how much is left of the lawsuit.
The case had been to the Supreme Court before.
In 2021, the justices sided with Germany in a multimillion-dollar dispute over a collection of religious artworks known as the Guelph Treasure. That decision made it harder for some lawsuits to be tried in U.S. courts over claims that property was taken from Jews during the Nazi era.
The justices heard the Hungary case at the same time and returned it to the appeals court in Washington in light of the decision involving Germany.
The appeals court, hearing the case for a third time, refused to dismiss all the claims.
The survivors filed the lawsuit with the goal of pursuing a class action case against Hungary and its railway on behalf of all Hungarian Holocaust survivors and family members of Holocaust victims. The railroad played a key role in the genocide, transporting more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz over two months in 1944.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
24 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump says Abrego Garcia's return to US 'wasn't my decision'
Abrego Garcia, a sheet metal worker and father of three from Maryland, was wrongly deported to El Salvador in March despite a 2019 court order barring his removal. His case drew national attention, after a standoff among the Trump administration, the courts and some congressional Democrats over his release. In April, a unanimous Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return to the United States. Officials claimed they couldn't force a sovereign nation - El Salvador - to relinquish a prisoner. The Trump administration insists that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, but a federal judge had previously questioned the strength of the government's evidence. Abrego Garcia denies being a gang member. Now, the Maryland man faces new charges on American soil. At a June 6 press conference, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi accused Abrego Garcia of making over 100 trips to smuggle undocumented immigrants across the nation. The indictment against Abrego Garcia alleges that he and co-conspirators worked with people in other countries to transport immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Mexico, and then took the people from Houston to Maryland, often varying their routes, and coming up with cover stories about construction if they were pulled over. Trump told NBC News he believes "it should be a very easy case" for federal prosecutors. But Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer for Abrego Garcia, criticized the Justice Department for bringing these charges at all: "Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after. This is an abuse of power, not justice." Contributing: USA TODAY Staff
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Beware the employee activists threatening to bring down British business
This was also true of issues like trans rights, which 64pc of respondents told us they felt 'well prepared' to deal with. But our survey was conducted shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its seminal decision on the meaning of 'sex' under the Equality Act 2010. From the intense public interest the decision has generated, it is reasonable to assume that not all employers may have judged this correctly. Why does any of this matter? Well, for one thing, because getting it wrong can end up in expensive and reputation-damaging litigation that an employer is unlikely to win if they have not been paying attention to their obligations. And if employers already think the Bill is going to drive up business costs, then finding themselves in court won't help. But it also matters because we found that employers are confronting an increasingly politicised workforce where issues that may have no relationship to the workplace itself are becoming topics of intense debate. For every social issue we asked about, from climate change to Israel and Gaza, employers told us it had at least doubled in salience in recent years. And this was particularly likely to be the case if the employer had taken a position on certain issues in the past (say the Ukraine War or Black Lives Matter). We found that once the employer expressed a view on one issue, the more likely they were to be expected to have a position on every issue. This means employers are increasingly being drawn into contentious issues where strongly held views may conflict, and there is a heightened imperative to strike the right balance between competing perspectives. And yet we found that employers are very often getting that balance wrong. Take, for example, the use of social media. Almost 40pc of employers who have a social media policy told us that they routinely reviewed the social media posts of staff and a quarter told us that they had either sacked or disciplined a current member of staff on the basis of something they had written online. Asked why they had taken disciplinary action, and almost 70pc told us that this was because they feared that what the employee had written could cause 'reputational damage' to the business. Around 60pc said it was because it could 'cause offence to other employees', roughly twice the proportion who said they had considered whether it impacted on the employee in question's ability to discharge their professional duties. But from a legal point of view, all of this must be viewed through the prism of the Court of Appeal's landmark decision in Higgs v Farmor's School that was handed down in February of this year. In a decision that was viewed as a vindication of free speech, the Court held that to discipline or dismiss an employee because they had expressed a religious or protected philosophical belief (here, a 'gender critical' view and criticisms of same sex marriage) to which the employer objected, could be unfair and amount to unlawful discrimination. They said it was insufficient to say that other employees had been offended because the employer 'does not have carte blanche to interfere with an employee's right to express their beliefs simply because third parties find those beliefs offensive.' None of which is to say that employees are free to say what they like either. The court described a balancing exercise in which relevant considerations might include whether the comments were made on a professional or personal account, whether guidance had been given about their post, what they had actually said (as opposed to what a third party may have chosen to read into it) and whether their post impacted on their ability to perform their duties. All of which adds up to a tricky situation for employers facing a more politicised (and often polarised) workforce. Protecting one set of views against another not only risks confrontation with members of staff but could also break the law. More than ever, employers need to prepare themselves with sound legal advice, clear internal communications with staff and a robust crisis plan for dealing with these kinds of eventualities. Because getting it wrong in an era defined by employee activism isn't just a management problem, but one that could impact the share price, affect consumer trends or even hit the balance sheet.
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Elon Musk and Donald Trump 'back together' as Tesla CEO extends olive branch
Elon Musk and Donald Trump had a spectacular falling out which had been building as the tech billionaire attacked the US president's "big beautiful bill" for several days Elon Musk appeared to extend an olive branch to Donald Trump in a social media post over the LA protests fuelling speculation that they could be soon 'back together'. The tech billionaire's 'bromance' with Donald Trump came to a fiery end last week in an ugly online spat between the pair on Thursday after several days where Musk had been criticising the US government over the president's "big beautiful bill". Trump threatened to cut Musk's government contracts and the tech billionaire claimed that US government hasn't released all the records related to sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein because Trump is mentioned in them. There is no suggestion Trump knew of any crimes or participated in any criminal behaviour. But several days later it seems as though tempers have cooled and Trump shared on X a photo of Trump's Truth Social post calling out California Governor Gavin Newsom over his handling of the current trouble in Los Angeles. The post by Trump demands that Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass should "apologize to the people of Los Angeles for the absolutely horrible job that they have done, and this now includes the ongoing L.A. riots." He added: "These are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists. Remember, NO MASKS!" In addition to Trump, the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency also shared a post by Vice President JD Vance, who said: "This moment calls for decisive leadership. The president will not tolerate rioting and violence." Musk added with his post two American flags. It has left many wondering whether this could mean an end to the war between the pair. "So are y'all besties again or...," one person wrote on social media. "You're doing the Seinfeld episode where George pretends he didn't rage quit his job. I'm for it," a second person stated. "Elon and Trump will be back together by the end of the week," a third person said. "Aren't you guys still fighting? " a fourth person laughed. The messy blow-up between the president of the United States and the world 's richest man played out on their respective social media platforms after Trump was asked during a White House meeting with Germany's new leader about Musk's criticism of his spending bill. Trump had largely remained silent as Musk stewed over the last few days on his social media platform X, condemning the president's so-called 'big beautiful bill.' But Trump clapped back Thursday in the Oval Office, saying he was 'very disappointed in Musk.' Musk responded on social media in real time. Trump, who was supposed to be spending Thursday discussing an end to the Russia-Ukraine war with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, ratcheted up the stakes when he turned to his own social media network, Truth Social, and threatened to use the US government to hurt Musk's bottom line by going after contracts held by his internet company Starlink and rocket company SpaceX. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on his social media network. 'Go ahead, make my day,' Musk quickly replied on X. Hours later, Musk announced SpaceX would begin decommissioning the spacecraft it used to carry astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station for NASA. He later stepped back from making this call and his apparent move to make up with Trump comes as Tesla stocks have crashed.
