Exploring Legal Challenges: Hungary’s Immunity in Holocaust Justice Case

Classical building with columns and a statue outside.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Holocaust survivors cannot sue Hungary in American courts for asset seizures during World War II, citing sovereign immunity.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Holocaust survivors suing Hungary in U.S. courts.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the 9-0 opinion, citing lack of commercial connection to the U.S.
The ruling upholds sovereign immunity principles in international law.
Survivors may still seek legal redress in other forums outside the U.S.
The case highlights complexities in litigating Holocaust-era asset seizures.

Supreme Court’s Unanimous Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously decided that a group of Holocaust survivors and their families cannot pursue legal action against Hungary in American courts for the seizure of assets during World War II. The case, Republic of Hungary v. Simon, centered on the interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and its application to historical atrocities.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court, emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to establish a direct commercial connection between the seized property and business activities in the United States stating, “The issue presented in this case is whether alleging commingling of funds alone can satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the expropriation exception of the FSIA. The Court holds that it cannot.”, a crucial requirement for overcoming sovereign immunity under the FSIA’s expropriation exception.

The Supreme Court unanimously sided with Hungary on Friday by rejecting a group of Holocaust survivors’ legal theory that sought to haul the country into American courts to pay compensation. https://t.co/sFYcrZMS4l

— WOWK 13 News (@WOWK13News) February 22, 2025

The Case’s Background

The lawsuit, initially filed in 2010, sought compensation for property confiscated during the Holocaust by Hungary and its state-owned railway system. The plaintiffs, survivors and their families, argued that Hungary had used proceeds from the seized assets for commercial activities in the U.S., thereby establishing a link that would allow them to sue under American jurisdiction.

Lower courts had initially found merit in this argument, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit allowing the case to proceed. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling overturned this decision, stating that the mere commingling of funds does not satisfy the commercial nexus requirement outlined in the FSIA.

Implications of the Ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for international law and the pursuit of justice for Holocaust survivors. While it protects the principle of sovereign immunity, it also presents challenges for those seeking restitution for historical wrongs through the U.S. legal system.

“Today’s decision concerns only what plaintiffs must plead to bring suit against foreign sovereigns for their actions abroad in the courts of the United States. That a particular claim cannot satisfy the expropriation exception means only that it cannot be brought here, not that it cannot be brought in any forum”, Justice Sotomayor went on to say, suggesting the possibility the plaintiffs may seek legal redress in other forums. This suggests that while U.S. courts may not be the appropriate venue for such claims, survivors and their families may still have avenues for pursuing justice elsewhere.

Historical Context and Future Implications

The case highlights the ongoing struggle for justice faced by Holocaust survivors and their descendants. Hungary’s role in the Holocaust was particularly devastating, with its state railway transporting over 400,000 Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz in 1944 alone. This ruling, while focused on legal technicalities, touches on deeply emotional and historical issues that continue to resonate decades after the events of World War II.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Republic of Hungary v. Simon follows a similar ruling in favor of Germany in a case involving the Guelph Treasure. These rulings collectively make it more challenging for Holocaust-related lawsuits to proceed in U.S. courts, potentially shifting the focus of such legal efforts to other international forums or diplomatic channels.

As the world continues to grapple with the legacy of the Holocaust, this case serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between historical justice, international law, and national sovereignty. While the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling closes one legal avenue for survivors, it also underscores the ongoing need for comprehensive and internationally coordinated efforts to address the lingering impacts of one of history’s darkest chapters.