Supreme Court expresses skepticism over Holocaust survivors suing Hungary

In December 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit approved the continuation of a lawsuit by Holocaust survivors against Hungary regarding property stolen during World War II. The court's decision arose amid concerns that Hungary had intermingled the proceeds from the sale of expropriated property into its national treasury, thus complicating the legal arguments surrounding jurisdiction in U.S. courts. The plaintiffs argue that the funds were co-mingled and some were used within the United States, invoking an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which typically protects foreign nations from being sued in U.S. courts. The case, Republic of Hungary v. Simon, has since reached the highest court, where justices have expressed reservations about the implications of ruling in favor of the families, which might lead to a wave of similar cases against foreign nations, placing increased stress on U.S. courts. Legal representatives for Hungary argue that the lack of a direct link between the plaintiffs’ claims and assets currently held by Hungary should negate the lawsuit, emphasizing concerns over judicial overreach and the potential for reciprocal claims against the United States. The lawyers representing the families contend that the appropriation of property by Hungary, which included forcing families from their homes, justifies their right to seek restitution in U.S. courts, especially given the humanitarian implications of their past suffering during and after the war. The case continues to unfold, highlighting the complex legal intersection between historical injustices and modern law regarding sovereign immunity.