Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1884 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>






119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1884

  To clarify the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, to 
appropriately limit the application of defenses based on the passage of 
      time and other non-merits defenses to claims under that Act.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2025

 Mr. Cornyn (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Booker, Mrs. 
 Blackburn, Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Schmitt, and Mrs. Britt) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  To clarify the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, to 
appropriately limit the application of defenses based on the passage of 
      time and other non-merits defenses to claims under that Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery 
Act of 2025''.

SEC. 2. HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT OF 2016 IMPROVEMENTS.

    (a) In General.--The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 
2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note) is amended--
            (1) in section 2--
                    (A) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph 
                (10);
                    (B) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
            ``(8) The intent of this Act is to permit claims to recover 
        Nazi-looted art to be brought, notwithstanding the passage of 
        time since World War II. Some courts have frustrated the intent 
        of this Act by dismissing recovery lawsuits in reliance on 
        defenses based on the passage of time, such as laches (for 
        example, Zuckerman v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 928 F.3d 186 
        (2d Cir. 2019)) or adverse possession, acquisitive 
        prescription, or usucapion (for example, Cassirer v. Thyssen-
        Bornemisza Foundation, 89 F.4th 1226 (9th Cir. 2024)) or on 
        other non-merits discretionary defenses, such as the act of 
        state doctrine (for example, Von Saher v Norton Simon Museum, 
        897 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2018)), forum non-conveniens, 
        international comity, or prudential exhaustion. In order to 
        effectuate the purpose of the Act to permit claims to recover 
        Nazi-looted art to be resolved on the merits, these defenses 
        must be precluded.
            ``(9) This Act also is intended to allow claims in 
        accordance with the procedures under this Act for the recovery 
        of artwork or other property lost during the covered period 
        because, or as a result, of Nazi persecution, including by a 
        covered government (as defined in section 1605(h)(3)(B) of 
        title 28, United States Code) or an agent or associate of a 
        covered government, regardless of the nationality or 
        citizenship of the alleged victim, notwithstanding the 
        `domestic takings' rule under Federal Republic of Germany v. 
        Philipp, 592 U.S. 169 (2021).''; and
                    (C) in paragraph (10), as so redesignated, by 
                striking ``will yield just and fair resolutions in a 
                more efficient and predictable manner'' and inserting 
                ``may, in some circumstances, yield just and fair 
                resolutions as well'';
            (2) in section 3(2), by inserting ``and other non-merits 
        defenses'' after ``statutes of limitation'';
            (3) in section 5--
                    (A) by striking subsection (g);
                    (B) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as 
                subsections (h) and (i), respectively;
                    (C) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) 
                as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
                    (D) by inserting after subsection (a) the 
                following:
    ``(b) Relation to Foreign State Immunities.--Notwithstanding any 
other law or prior judicial decision, any civil claim or cause of 
action covered by subsection (a) shall be deemed to be an action in 
which rights in violation of international law are in issue for 
purposes of 1605(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, without regard 
to the nationality or citizenship of the alleged victim.'';
                    (E) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, in the 
                matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
                ``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (h)'';
                    (F) in subsection (e), as so redesignated--
                            (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
                        by striking ``Subsection (a)'' and inserting 
                        ``Subsections (a), (b), (f), and (g)''; and
                            (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``during 
                        the period'' and all that follows and inserting 
                        ``on or after the date of enactment of this 
                        Act.''; and
                    (G) by inserting after subsection (e), as so 
                redesignated, the following:
    ``(f) Defenses Based on Passage of Time and Other Non-Merits 
Defenses.--With respect to any claim that is otherwise timely under 
this Act--
            ``(1) all defenses or substantive doctrines based on the 
        passage of time, including laches, adverse possession, 
        acquisitive prescription, and usucapion, may not be applied 
        with respect to the claim; and
            ``(2) all non-merits discretionary bases for dismissal, 
        including the act of state doctrine, international comity, 
        forum non-conveniens, prudential exhaustion, and similar 
        doctrines unrelated to the merits, may not be applied with 
        respect to the claim.
    ``(g) Nationwide Service of Process.--For a civil action brought 
under subsection (a) in any State or Federal court, process may be 
served in the judicial district where the case is brought or any other 
judicial district of the United States where the defendant may be 
found, resides, has an agent, or transacts business.''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

    ``If any provision of this Act, or the application of a provision 
of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the 
remainder of this Act, and the application of such provision to other 
persons and circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to any civil claim or cause of action that is--
            (1) pending in any court on the date of enactment of this 
        Act, including any civil claim or cause of action that is 
        pending on appeal or for which the time to file an appeal has 
        not expired; or
            (2) filed on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>