Republic of Hungary, et al., Petitioners v. Rosalie Simon, et al.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Hungary, finding that Holocaust survivors cannot sue the nation in U.S. courts based only on the mixing of funds. The Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requires a clear link between the stolen property and commercial activity in the United States. Simply alleging that money from seized assets was put into a general government fund is not enough to break a foreign country's legal immunity.

This decision makes it much harder for victims of international crimes to seek financial justice in American courts when their property was taken by a foreign government. It protects foreign nations from being sued unless plaintiffs can trace specific assets or proceeds directly to business dealings within the U.S. This ruling will likely lead to the dismissal of similar cases where the paper trail of stolen property has been lost over decades.

The case involves the 'expropriation exception' to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which usually prevents Americans from suing foreign governments. The dispute stems from the 1944 seizure of Jewish-owned property by the Hungarian government during the Holocaust. The Court had to balance the desire for justice for survivors with the need to respect the independence of foreign nations and avoid diplomatic conflict.

In a 9-0 decision, Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.

“The expropriation exception requires plaintiffs to establish a clear trace between expropriated property (or the proceeds from its sale) and property present in the United States in connection with commercial activity.”

The Supreme Court shielded Hungary from a lawsuit by Holocaust survivors, ruling that vague claims of mixed government funds do not allow U.S. courts to hear cases against foreign nations.

The case will now return to the lower courts, where the survivors' claims will likely be dismissed because they cannot meet the strict tracing requirements set by the Supreme Court. Legal experts will watch to see if other foreign governments use this ruling to end pending lawsuits regarding historical property seizures. Congress could potentially change the law if they want to make it easier for victims to sue in these specific circumstances.

Survivors sued for compensation after Hungary seized Jewish-owned property in 1944. They argued that because the proceeds were mixed with general funds, they could sue under U.S. law.

Victims must now provide a specific paper trail linking stolen goods to U.S. business activity. This is extremely difficult for crimes that happened eighty years ago.

The Court clarified that 'commingling' (mixing) funds is not enough to establish a commercial connection. Plaintiffs must show a 'clear trace' between the seized property and the United States.

The case is vacated and remanded (sent back) to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court must apply the Supreme Court's new, stricter standard to the survivors' claims.

The ruling follows a trend of the Court limiting when U.S. judges can interfere in foreign affairs. It reinforces the idea that foreign states are generally immune from American lawsuits.