Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 in plain language
1: Short title
This section would let the Act be called the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025.
Show official text
1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 .
2: Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 improvements
This section would amend the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (cited in law at 22 U.S.C. 1621 note, sometimes called the HEAR Act). It would add two new findings to section 2 of the 2016 Act, renumbering that Act's existing final finding (paragraph 8) as paragraph 10 and inserting two new paragraphs after paragraph 7. The new paragraph 8 would state that the 2016 Act's intent is to let claims to recover Nazi-looted art go forward despite the time that has passed since World War II, and would say that some courts have undercut that intent by dismissing recovery lawsuits based on defenses tied to the passage of time, such as laches (as in Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art) or adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, or usucapion (as in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Foundation), or based on other non-merits discretionary defenses, such as the act of state doctrine (as in Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum), forum non conveniens, international comity, or prudential exhaustion. It would state that these defenses must be barred so claims can be resolved on the merits, as the Act intends. The new paragraph 9 would state that the 2016 Act is also meant to let claims proceed, under its procedures, to recover artwork or other property lost during the covered period because of, or as a result of, Nazi persecution, including losses caused by a covered government (as defined in 28 U.S.C. 1605(h)(3)(B)) or by an agent or associate of a covered government, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the person harmed, and notwithstanding the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, which had applied the domestic takings rule. The redesignated paragraph 10 (the 2016 Act's former paragraph 8) would have its wording changed: instead of stating that the Act's procedures 'will yield just and fair resolutions in a more efficient and predictable manner,' it would state that the procedures 'may, in some circumstances, yield just and fair resolutions as well.' This section would also amend section 3(2) of the 2016 Act by adding the phrase 'and other non-merits defenses' after its existing reference to 'statutes of limitation,' so that provision would cover non-merits defenses generally, not only statutes of limitation. This section would restructure section 5 of the 2016 Act. It would eliminate the 2016 Act's current subsection (g); the text of that subsection is not reproduced in this bill. It would renumber the 2016 Act's current subsections (e) and (f) as (h) and (i), and its current subsections (b), (c), and (d) as (c), (d), and (e), to make room for new material. It would insert a new subsection (b), titled 'Relation to foreign state immunities,' providing that, notwithstanding any other law or prior court decision, any civil claim or cause of action covered by subsection (a) would be treated as an action in which rights in violation of international law are at issue for purposes of section 1605(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code (the foreign sovereign immunity exception for property taken in violation of international law), regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the person harmed. In the redesignated subsection (d) (the 2016 Act's former subsection (c)), it would update a cross-reference from 'subsection (e)' to 'subsection (h)' to match the renumbering; the substantive content of that subsection is not reproduced in this bill. In the redesignated subsection (e) (the 2016 Act's former subsection (d)), it would expand which subsections that provision's introductory text applies to, from subsection (a) alone to subsections (a), (b), (f), and (g), and it would change a timing rule in that subsection's paragraph (2) so that the relevant date becomes the date of enactment of this Act, replacing earlier wording that is not reproduced in this bill. It would insert a new subsection (f), titled 'Defenses based on passage of time and other non-Merits defenses,' providing that, for any claim that is otherwise timely under the 2016 Act: (1) no defense or doctrine based on the passage of time, including laches, adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, or usucapion, may be applied to the claim; and (2) no non-merits discretionary basis for dismissal, including the act of state doctrine, international comity, forum non conveniens, prudential exhaustion, or similar doctrines unrelated to the merits, may be applied to the claim. It would insert a new subsection (g), titled 'Nationwide service of process,' providing that in a civil action brought under subsection (a) in any state or federal court, process may be served in the judicial district where the case is filed or in any other United States judicial district where the defendant can be found, resides, has an agent, or does business. This section would add a new section 6, titled 'Severability,' to the 2016 Act, providing that if any provision of the Act, or its application to a person or circumstance, is held invalid, the rest of the Act and its application to other persons and circumstances would remain in effect. Finally, this section states that these amendments would apply to any civil claim or cause of action that is pending in any court on the date this Act is enacted, including a claim pending on appeal or for which the deadline to appeal has not yet passed, or that is filed on or after the date of enactment, meaning the changes would apply to already-pending lawsuits as well as new ones.
Show official text
2. Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 improvements (a) In general The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 ( 22 U.S.C. 1621 note) is amended— (1) in section 2— (A) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (10); (B) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following: (8) The intent of this Act is to permit claims to recover Nazi-looted art to be brought, notwithstanding the passage of time since World War II. Some courts have frustrated the intent of this Act by dismissing recovery lawsuits in reliance on defenses based on the passage of time, such as laches (for example, Zuckerman v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 928 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2019)) or adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, or usucapion (for example, Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Foundation, 89 F.4th 1226 (9th Cir. 2024)) or on other non-merits discretionary defenses, such as the act of state doctrine (for example, Von Saher v Norton Simon Museum, 897 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2018)), forum non-conveniens, international comity, or prudential exhaustion. In order to effectuate the purpose of the Act to permit claims to recover Nazi-looted art to be resolved on the merits, these defenses must be precluded. (9) This Act also is intended to allow claims in accordance with the procedures under this Act for the recovery of artwork or other property lost during the covered period because, or as a result, of Nazi persecution, including by a covered government (as defined in section 1605(h)(3)(B) of title 28, United States Code) or an agent or associate of a covered government, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the alleged victim, notwithstanding the domestic takings rule under Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. 169 (2021). ; and (C) in paragraph (10), as so redesignated, by striking will yield just and fair resolutions in a more efficient and predictable manner and inserting may, in some circumstances, yield just and fair resolutions as well ; (2) in section 3(2), by inserting and other non-merits defenses after statutes of limitation ; (3) in section 5— (A) by striking subsection (g); (B) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (h) and (i), respectively; (C) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; (D) by inserting after subsection (a) the following: (b) Relation to foreign state immunities Notwithstanding any other law or prior judicial decision, any civil claim or cause of action covered by subsection (a) shall be deemed to be an action in which rights in violation of international law are in issue for purposes of 1605(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, without regard to the nationality or citizenship of the alleged victim. ; (E) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking subsection (e) and inserting subsection (h) ; (F) in subsection (e), as so redesignated— (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking Subsection (a) and inserting Subsections (a), (b), (f), and (g) ; and (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking during the period and all that follows and inserting on or after the date of enactment of this Act. ; and (G) by inserting after subsection (e), as so redesignated, the following: (f) Defenses based on passage of time and other non-Merits defenses With respect to any claim that is otherwise timely under this Act— (1) all defenses or substantive doctrines based on the passage of time, including laches, adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, and usucapion, may not be applied with respect to the claim; and (2) all non-merits discretionary bases for dismissal, including the act of state doctrine, international comity, forum non-conveniens, prudential exhaustion, and similar doctrines unrelated to the merits, may not be applied with respect to the claim. (g) Nationwide service of process For a civil action brought under subsection (a) in any State or Federal court, process may be served in the judicial district where the case is brought or any other judicial district of the United States where the defendant may be found, resides, has an agent, or transacts business. ; and (4) by adding at the end the following: 6. Severability If any provision of this Act, or the application of a provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. . (b) Applicability The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any civil claim or cause of action that is— (1) pending in any court on the date of enactment of this Act, including any civil claim or cause of action that is pending on appeal or for which the time to file an appeal has not expired; or (2) filed on or after the date of enactment of this Act.