Breaking and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Saturday May 8 3 AM US EST to 12 PM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Rejecting the view of the Bush administration and several foreign governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal law allows Americans to sue other nations in U.S. courts for long-ago war crimes and other offenses. By a 6-3 vote, the Court gave the green light to Maria Altmann’s suit against the Austrian government to recover valuable paintings owned by her uncle that were expropriated after World War II. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, No. 03-13, said the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which allows for certain civil suits against foreign governments, applies to conduct that occurred before the law’s passage in 1976. But Stevens emphasized the narrowness of the ruling, noting that the United States and foreign governments will still be able to argue in such cases that sovereign immunity should apply under other doctrines, or that the suits should fail because of statutes of limitations or treaty obligations. “Nothing in our holding prevents the State Department from filing statements of interest suggesting the courts decline to exercise jurisdiction in particular cases implicating foreign sovereign immunity,” wrote Stevens. But in dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy warned that the decision “injects great prospective uncertainty into our relations with foreign sovereigns.” Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, said traditional presumptions against the retroactivity of new laws should have prevailed. Scott Cooper of the New York firm Proskauer Rose, who represented Austria in the case, said, “There’s no question that we are disappointed in the outcome.” But, he added, “the Court majority plainly does not intend that this decision result in a lot of other cases.” The Altmann case drew wide interest not just because of international concern — briefs were filed by Mexico and Japan on the side of Austria — but also because of Altmann’s personal quest for the six Gustav Klimt paintings valued at more than $150 million. An Austrian journalist discovered evidence in 1998 that the paintings and other works at the Austrian Gallery, Austria’s national museum, had been seized by Nazis or expropriated by Austria after World War II. The paintings sought by Altmann had hung in the Vienna home of her uncle. She won her case at the district court level and before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the majority opinion, Stevens reviewed Altmann’s saga as well as years of the Court’s retroactivity doctrine, concluding that there is “clear evidence that Congress intended the act to apply to preenactment conduct.” Emory University law professor David Bederman said the ruling may have more impact on the issue of retroactivity of federal laws than on international litigation. Bederman, who wrote an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Jewish legal organizations, said that a recent “cottage industry” of claims against Germany and Japan for World War II-era conduct had mostly been thwarted by existing treaties and other legal impediments — and would not be revived by Monday’s ruling. “I don’t see any significant impact on the volume of cases,” resulting from the Court’s decision, Bederman said. But some cases are still pending — one case filed by Holocaust survivors against French railroads, for example, and a suit by women claiming they had been enslaved by Japan — and may be affected by the decision. The decision was a relatively rare instance in which the Supreme Court upheld a 9th Circuit decision. It was balanced by another ruling Monday that was truer to form, in which the justices struck down a 9th Circuit decision involving Mexican trucks and the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Court in Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, No. 03-358, ruled that the government did not have to file an anti-environmental impact statement before allowing Mexican trucks to resume operations in the United States. Congress in 1982 restricted the access of Mexican trucks to U.S. markets, but as part of NAFTA, the government agreed to phase out the ban. President Bill Clinton, responding to environmental and safety concerns, was slow to lift the ban on Mexican trucks. President George W. Bush lifted the moratorium in 2002, but environmental and labor groups challenged the action in court. They argued that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in promulgating new rules allowing the Mexican trucks to enter the country, should have conducted an environmental impact statement. But the high court ruled Monday that environmental laws should not be an obstacle to Bush’s decision to end the moratorium. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for all nine justices, said that since the FMCSA was not responsible for the moratorium in the first place, it was not obligated to assess the environmental impact of ending it. Thomas’ reading of the opinion provided a rare light moment at the Court. As he plowed through the numerous acronyms of agencies and statutes involved in the case, Thomas paused and said, “By the way, there will be a quiz on all the acronyms.” Also on Monday, in City of Littleton, Colorado v. Z.J. Gifts, No. 02-1609, the Court ruled that the First Amendment requires judges to quickly decide zoning disputes over adult businesses. And in Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Heinz, No. 02-891, the Court held that when an employer expands the categories of post-retirement employment that have the effect of reducing pension benefits, that employer violates the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.