People sometimes ask whether it is still necessary to address Holocaust-era restitution, almost 80 years since the end of WWII. Shouldn’t that be finished by now? Sadly, it’s not. Numerous restitution issues remain unfinished in a variety of countries.
The issue of how to deal with Nazi-confiscated art has plagued both Holocaust survivors and courts for years. Various governments, including the United States, have sought to address this issue through the non-binding but influential 1998 Washington Principles to identify and provide resources to return Nazi-era confiscated art. Later, these principles were expanded by the 2009 Terezin Declaration, which recognized that “there remain[ed] substantial issues to be addressed, because only a part of the confiscated property has been recovered or compensated” and “urge[d] that every effort be made to rectify the consequences of wrongful property seizures, such as confiscations, forced sales and sales under duress of property, which were part of the persecution of these innocent people and groups, the vast majority of whom died heirless.”
In 2016, the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (the “2016 HEAR Act”), was passed and later revised by Congress with the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 (the “2025 HEAR Act”), which recognized: “Some courts have frustrated the intent of this Act by dismissing recovery lawsuits in reliance on defenses based on the passage of time.” Although the 2016 HEAR Act did not provide for a private right of action, it did recognize that “ ‘steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution’ to claims involving such art that has not been restituted if the owners or their heirs can be identified.”
It was on this palette that Schoeps v. Sompo Holdings, Inc., 160 F.4th 815 (7th Cir. 2025), was decided. Schoeps presents significant implications for restitution claims to recover Nazi-looted artwork under the 2016 HEAR Act.
