Term: 2021
Docket: 20-1566
Cassirer v. Thyssen-bornemisza Collection Foundation
- Pro
20-1566 CASSIRER V. THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA FOUNDATION DECISION BELOW: 824 Fed.Appx. 452 CERT. GRANTED 9/30/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602–1611 (“FSIA”), provides that where a foreign nation is not immune from jurisdiction in the courts of the United States or of any State, it “shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” Id. § 1606. In four circuits, the courts of appeals have held that this statutory requirement of parity with private litigation means that a federal court hearing an FSIA case must apply the choice-of-law rules of the State in which it is sitting. But the Ninth Circuit has held—repeatedly and without meaningful analysis, including in the decision below—that choice of law in FSIA cases is determined by application of federal common law. The choice of law issue is critical in this case, in which the family of a Holocaust survivor seeks the return of a painting stolen by the Nazis. Under California law, a holder of stolen property (such as the Spanish state museum here) can never acquire good title, while under Spanish law, an adverse possession rule protects the museum’s title. The question presented is: Whether a federal court hearing state law claims brought under the FSIA must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules to determine what substantive law governs the claims at issue, or whether it may apply federal common law. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-55616
In Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, the Supreme Court held that a federal district court in Florida had jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by an heir of Jewish art dealers who were forced to sell artwork during Nazi Germany’s reign. The heirs sought restitution for the painting from its current owner, the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation (TBCF), which is based in Spain and has no other contacts with Florida or any other state within the United States. The Court determined that TBCF was subject to specific personal jurisdiction because it had engaged in purposeful activities directed at citizens of Florida when it loaned works of art from its collection to museums located there and advertised those exhibitions on websites accessible within the state. Therefore, even though TBCF did not have general personal jurisdiction over all claims against it due to insufficient contacts with U.S., this case fell under specific personal jurisdiction since TBCF purposefully availed itself of benefits associated with exhibiting artwork in Florida museums and advertising those exhibitions online where they could be accessed by Floridians
In the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court case of Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, Justice Scalia argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). He argued that the majority opinion was too broad in its interpretation of the FSIA, and that the FSIA should not be interpreted to apply to the facts of this case. He argued that the FSIA should only be applied to cases involving foreign governments, and not to cases involving private entities such as the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the FSIA, and that the FSIA should not be interpreted to apply to the facts of this case. He argued that the FSIA should only be applied to cases involving foreign governments, and not to cases involving private entities such as the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation. He also argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the FSIA's "commercial activity" exception, and that the exception should not be interpreted to apply to the facts of this case. He argued that the exception should only be applied to cases involving commercial activities that are directly related to the foreign government, and not to cases involving private entities such as the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation. He concluded by arguing that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the FSIA, and that the FSIA should not be interpreted to apply to the facts of this case.
