In a 9–0 unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Hungary cannot be compelled by an American court to pay restitution to 14 Holocaust survivors for their property confiscated from them by the Hungarian state during World War II.
The case became known as Republic of Hungary v Simon, after lead plaintiff Rosalie Simon, who is a United States citizen now. Of the 13 other plaintiffs, three more are American citizens, two are Canadians, one is Australian, and seven are Israelis. They collectively sued the Republic of Hungary, the Hungarian state railway company MÁV Magyar Államvasutak (arguing that Hungarian railways were used to transport their confiscated property out of the country), and the freight train company Rail Cargo Hungaria, which is successor-in-interest to MÁV’s freight division at the time of tort claim taking place.
The class action lawsuit was originally filed in 2014 in the District Court for the District of Columbia. However, the Hungarian government argued that US courts lack jurisdiction over the matter due to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. The District Court ruled in favour of Simon et al, saying that they had demonstrated exceptions to the FSIA act, but Hungary appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS agreed to hear the case, and oral arguments eventually started in December 2024.
Since the filing of the suit, a very similar case, the Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, was decided by the Supreme Court in 2021. In that case, the ruling decided that the heirs of a German Jewish art dealer could not compel the German government through US courts to pay restitution for the artwork confiscated during World War II. Instead, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts for clarification.
On 21 February 2025, the Supreme Court came out with their unanimous decision on Republic of Hungary v Simon, siding with Hungary, as we wrote above. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion.
‘The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) provides foreign states with presumptive immunity from suit in the United States. To sue a foreign sovereign in United States courts, plaintiffs must satisfy one of the exceptions to immunity set forth in the FSIA. The FSIA’s expropriation exception permits claims when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue” and either the property itself or any property “exchanged for” the expropriated property has a commercial nexus to the United States.
Respondents, Jewish survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust and their heirs, sued Hungary and its national railway (MÁV) in federal court, seeking damages for property allegedly seized during World War II. Respondents’ complaint alleged that Hungary and MÁV liquidated the expropriated property, commingled the proceeds with other government funds, and later used funds from those commingled accounts in connection with commercial activities in the United States. The District Court determined that this “commingling theory” satisfied the commercial nexus requirement…
Alleging commingling of funds alone cannot satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the FSIA’s expropriation exception. The expropriation exception requires plaintiffs to trace either the specific expropriated property itself or “any property exchanged for such property” to the United States (or to the possession of a foreign state instrumentality engaged in United States commercial activity),’ the unanimous Supreme Court opinion states.
Related articles:
