匈牙利共和国诉西蒙案

Rosalie Simon and other Jewish survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust, along with their heirs, sued the Republic of Hungary and its national railway MÁV in U.S. federal court, seeking damages for property allegedly seized during World War II. The plaintiffs alleged that Hungary and MÁV liquidated the expropriated property, commingled the proceeds with other government funds, and later used funds from those commingled accounts in connection with commercial activities in the United States. The District Court for the District of Columbia determined that this "commingling theory" satisfied the commercial nexus requirement of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) expropriation exception, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether alleging commingling of funds alone can satisfy the commercial nexus requirement.

The Supreme Court held unanimously that alleging commingling of funds alone cannot satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the FSIA's expropriation exception. The Court vacated the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Court further ordered that petitioners Republic of Hungary et al. recover $3,571.20 in costs from Rosalie Simon et al.

The central dispute is whether the mere allegation that proceeds from expropriated property were commingled with a foreign nation's general assets, and that those general assets were later used for commercial purposes in the United States, satisfies the commercial nexus requirement of the FSIA's expropriation exception (28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(3)). The Court had to determine whether plaintiffs must trace either the specific expropriated property itself or "any property exchanged for such property" to the United States, or whether a broader commingling theory suffices.

The decision significantly tightened the jurisdictional requirements for plaintiffs seeking to sue foreign sovereigns in U.S. courts under the FSIA's expropriation exception. By rejecting the commingling theory, the Court raised the bar for Holocaust survivors and other claimants to establish U.S. jurisdiction over foreign states for historical expropriations. The ruling has broad implications for foreign sovereign immunity jurisprudence, particularly affecting cases involving fungible property and historical human rights violations. It also provides guidance for foreign states and their instrumentalities operating in the United States regarding their exposure to suit for alleged expropriations.