Philipp v Germany: An Update

The Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Guelph Treasure case this week, and unfortunately it was not good news for my cousin Alan Philipp and the other plaintiffs. As I wrote about here, the plaintiffs, heirs to the Consortium of art collectors who once owned the Guelph Treasure, alleged that Germany and its agency, the SPK, had expropriated their property in violation of international law when the Nazis fraudulently and illegally coerced the Consortium into selling the Guelph Treasure to them at a third of its value in June 1935. After unsuccessfully seeking reparations from Germany, the plaintiffs brought their claims in the US federal courts for wrongful expropriation of their property in violation of international law.

The defendants asserted immunity from suit in the US under the Foreign Sovereignty Immunity Act (“FSIA”), claiming that Germany and its agents could not be sued in US courts. The plaintiffs asserted in response that their claims fell within the expropriation exception of the FSIA, which allows claims against foreign nations based on property taken in violation of international law, as I explained here. The plaintiffs argued that the forced sale of the Guelph Treasure to the Nazis had violated international law because it was coerced and consummated as part of the Nazi persecution of Jews during the Holocaust.

The District Court and the Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs that the expropriation exception applied and that the case could be heard in the US federal courts, but the Supreme Court has now reversed those decisions and remanded the case back to the District Court. The Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that the plaintiffs’ claims did not fit into the expropriation exception of the FSIA if they were claims by German nationals against Germany. They read the “in violation of international law” language in the exception narrowly to refer only to the international law of property, not to international law respecting human rights. Then they addressed the “domestic takings” principle of international property law, which precludes US courts from adjudicating claims by a country’s nationals against that country. The court concluded that the domestic takings rule would apply here and deprive the plaintiffs of their right to have their claims against Germany heard in US courts if the members of the Consortium were nationals of Germany.

The plaintiffs are, however, left with one possible argument to allow the case to go forward in the US courts: that the members of the Consortium were no longer German “nationals” in June 1935 because Nazi persecution of the Jews in Germany destroyed their standing as German nationals, and thus their claim is not a claim by a German national against Germany and thus not precluded under the domestic takings rule. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the District Court for consideration of that issue.1

The decision is obviously disappointing for the plaintiffs and for other descendants of German Jews who might seek relief in American courts for property stolen by the Nazis. The court’s opinion focuses primarily on the statutory language and legislative history. But the court also made it clear that it was concerned about the policy implications of allowing such claims in the US—in particular, the possibility that a foreign court could likewise adjudicate claims by American nationals against the US for violations of their human rights.

What the court failed to address are the policy implications of its decision. Their ruling means that those descended from Jews who lived in Germany during the Nazi era are deprived of the right to bring property claims in US courts against the country that persecuted them because they were nationals of Germany. The argument on remand should establish that by persecuting, dehumanizing, torturing and killing its Jewish residents because they were considered subhuman and dangerous, Germany forfeited the right to claim that those same Jewish residents were German nationals and thus should be subject to suit in the US under the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

You can read the Supreme Court decision here: Philipp v Germany SCOTUS opinion

Photo by Mr. Kjetil Ree., CC BY-SA 3.0 <;, via Wikimedia Commons


  1. The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs had waived that argument in the lower courts and thus could not revive it now; the Supreme Court said that was also to be determined by the District Court. 

20 thoughts on “Philipp v Germany: An Update

  1. Reading through the maze-like language of the law has always been a challenge to me. And the case of Philipp vs. Germany is no exception. I believe the problem the Supreme Court was facing in making a decision was the grave concern that the US may be sued likewise by people in other countries. A truly disappointing outcome for your cousin Alan Philipp, Amy!

    Liked by 1 person

    • The law is indeed hard to decipher. I tried my best, but after over 40 years as a lawyer, it’s second nature to me. I hope I made it somewhat clear to non-lawyers! Thanks for reading, Peter.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. This is incredibly disappointing. I wonder what could happen in this District Court, if the Supreme Court could not get around the language? Clearly this is stolen property from desperate people being coerced in an untenable situation. I hope the plaintiffs see justice….

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think what is left is the argument that the plaintiffs were no longer German nationals because of the way Jews were being treated in Germany at that time. Although the transaction predated the Nuremberg Laws by just a few months, there was already a great deal of anti-Semitic rhetoric and acts taking place in Germany at that time.


    • Sorry—as a lawyer, I forget how hard this can be for a lay person to follow. The federal system has three layers of courts. The District Court is the trial court, the Court of Appeals an intermediate appellate court, and the Supreme Court is the highest court. In this case, as I wrote in the first blog about it, there has been no trial yet because the defendants argued the plaintiffs had no basis for a legal claim on the basis of the FSIA. That issue has now been fully litigated on all of the issues EXCEPT whether or not the plaintiff’s ancestors were nationals of Germany at the time of the forced sale. That issue now has to go back to the trial level (the District Court) because it involves questions of fact as well as law that must be heard first at the trial court. I hope that helps????


      • But when you say “has now been fully litigated . . . ” what does that exactly mean? Litigated where? Sorry for being so dense. Maybe you should use me as the (dumbest) model by which you need to explain to HAHAHAHAH.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think most of that I explained (I hope clearly) in the earlier post so did not repeat here. By fully litigated, I mean it’s been through all three court levels and has been finally decided. The remaining issue was not yet addressed in any of the three courts.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. The actual sale of the items took place 14th June 1935. The Nuremberg Laws removed citizenship from German Jews 15th September 1935.Thus, the sellers were still legally citizens of the Reich. Sadly, I doubt there is any hope. (German courts have an absolutely abysmal record when it comes to restitution cases).

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: Friday’s Family History Finds | Empty Branches on the Family Tree

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.