[ad_1]
Lawyers for the heirs have argued that the owners of the collection – a treasure known as Welfenschatz that dates back to the Holy Roman Empire – were forced to sell it at fire-sale prices as Nazi coercion and harassment of Jews were intensifying before World War II.
The heirs argued that the sales were part of genocide under international law because they were essentially an early stage of the Holocaust in which six million Jews were ultimately killed.
However, Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed the argument, saying the dispute was seen better as a takeover rather than genocide. Foreign governments are generally immune from prosecution in the United States, but the exemption is waived for acts that violate international law, such as genocide.
“We are not looking to genocide law to determine whether we have jurisdiction over common law property claims of heirs. We are looking to property law,” Roberts wrote.
Roberts also said the court would risk retaliation against the United States by allowing this type of prosecution.
“As a nation, we would be surprised – and might even initiate reciprocal action – if a German court adjudicated Americans’ claims that they were entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars because of human rights violations. committed by the US government years ago. There is no reason to predict that Germany’s reaction would be any different if the US courts exercised the claimed jurisdiction in this case, ”the chief justice wrote.
A German court considered the heirs’ claims and did not award any compensation, concluding that sales in the 1930s were not made under duress.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling is a major defeat for the heirs, it may not completely shut down the case. The judges left open the possibility that the heirs could pursue the argument that those who sold the collection were not German citizens at the time. This would turn the dispute into an international dispute, which could leave a role for the US courts.
In another action on Wednesday, judges accepted requests from the new Biden administration to postpone arguments in two immigration-related cases that were due to be debated in the coming weeks.
The tribunal said it is setting aside for now disputes over the legality of funding President Donald Trump’s wall of marks along the border with Mexico and over a known Trump-instituted asylum policy. under the name “Stay in Mexico,” which requires most asylum seekers to apply at US border crossings to return to Mexico to await hearings.
The Biden administration has suspended the extension of the border wall and no longer enrolling asylum seekers in the controversial program involving asylum hearings at the border. However, this latest change appears to be largely symbolic at this time, as the coronavirus-related limits for foreigners entering the United States are still in place.
[ad_2]
Source link