Republic of Hungary v. Simon

In Republic of Hungary v. Simon, fourteen Holocaust survivors and 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 claimed that Hungary and MÁV liquidated the expropriated property, commingled the proceeds with general government funds, and later used those funds for commercial activities in the United States. The District Court and the D.C. Circuit allowed the case to proceed under the "commingling theory," finding the commercial nexus requirement of the FSIA's expropriation exception satisfied. On February 3, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous per curiam decision vacating the D.C. Circuit's judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp. The Court held that the FSIA does not permit claims against foreign governments for taking property from their own citizens, even during a genocide.

The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp. The Court held that a sovereign's theft of its own citizens' property during a genocide does not violate international law, and therefore the FSIA's expropriation exception does not apply.

Whether the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) allows claims against a foreign sovereign for expropriating the property of its own citizens during the Holocaust, and whether the "commingling theory" satisfies the commercial nexus requirement of that exception.

The decision significantly narrowed the scope of the FSIA's expropriation exception, making it more difficult for Holocaust survivors and other victims of foreign sovereign expropriation to seek redress in U.S. courts. It underscored the tension between providing justice for historical atrocities and maintaining international comity and respect for sovereign immunity. The ruling also had implications for foreign policy, the extraterritorial reach of U.S. law, and potentially encouraged alternative avenues such as international arbitration for restitution claims.