Supreme Court Grants Cert And Reverses In Victories For Manatt Amicus Clients in Nazi Looting Cases

Manatt filed an amicus brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court over the refusal of a Spanish museum to return a Nazi-looted painting to the heirs of the rightful owners from whom the painting was stolen during World War II. On March 10, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to consider California’s recently enacted statute requiring that California substantive law apply to claims alleging stolen artwork.

The case, David Cassirer, et al. v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, involves a Camille Pissarro painting that was looted by the Nazis in 1939 from Lilly Cassirer, the great-grandmother of Petitioner David Cassirer. The painting is currently held in Madrid by Respondent Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection (TBC), a Spanish government museum. Although TBC concedes the Nazis’ theft, it has fought to keep possession of this Nazi plunder for some 25 years, since the Cassirer family discovered the painting’s location and sought its return. The case was initially filed in 2005 and has experienced a tortuous procedural history over the last two and a half decades. In this most recent round of litigation, the issue before the Ninth Circuit was whether to apply Spanish law or California law. Under California substantive law, the painting would belong to the Cassirers because a thief cannot convey good title and rightful owners cannot be divested of title when they lack actual knowledge of an artwork’s whereabouts. But under the Spanish law of acquisitive prescription, a doctrine akin to adverse possession, TBC acquired title to the painting by holding it for three years before the Cassirers finally located it and sought its return. The Ninth Circuit applied Spanish law and held that TBC did not have to return the painting. 

Now the question before the Supreme Court was whether the case should be remanded in light of a recent California statute (Assem. Bill 2867, 2023–2024 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2024)) requiring that California substantive law apply to claims alleging stolen artwork. Alternatively, petitioners argued that the Ninth Circuit erred in its choice-of-law analysis by ignoring relevant federal treaties, statutes, Executive policies and international agreements, which prohibit plunder of works of art and call for restitution of looted property. 

The amicus brief was filed on behalf of ten advocacy organizations focused on spreading awareness about the horrors of the Holocaust, securing justice for victims and survivors of the Holocaust and combating antisemitism. In the brief, Manatt argued that both moral and legal considerations compel a reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The brief argues “this case presents a legal issue on which the California legislature, the United States legislative and executive branches, and the international community are all aligned. These governmental entities have all recognized the importance of returning Nazi-looted art back to its rightful owners. The only bodies that have not joined this consensus are the courts below.” The case is significant because it can impact the way federal courts conduct the choice-of-law analysis moving forward. In sum, the brief argues “the Ninth Circuit’s decision contravenes the express intent of California, the United States, and the international community—all of which endeavor to return Nazi-looted art to its rightful owners. Moreover, the restoration of the painting Rue St. Honoré to the rightful Jewish heirs through the application of California law promotes Spain’s current efforts to acknowledge and rectify wrongs of its own authoritarian past.”  

The amici organizations are: , , , , , , , , and .

Manatt filed another amicus brief for a similar case in a 2 Circuit appeal over the refusal of an art institute to return a Nazi-looted painting to the co-heirs of Grünbaum, the rightful owner of the Artwork who died in 1941. In Reif v. Art Institute of Chicago, the co-heirs claimed ownership of the stolen painting which was in the possession of the Art Institute of Chicago (AIC). The AIC argued that the Artwork was not stolen by Nazis but acquired through purchase from Grünbaum’s relative in 1966 and therefore owned by the institute. After the co-heirs filed a lawsuit against the AIC, the District Court dismissed their complaint on the basis of statute of limitations and laches, which led to the appeal. Ultimately, the original decision of the District Court was vacated and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. In the amicus brief, Manatt wrote, “This case is a kairos, an opportune moment, for this Court to oppose continuous abuse of Holocaust victims and their heirs in cases regarding restitution of cultural objects that were stolen from Jews. This case is also an important opportunity to help stop distortion or trivialization of the Holocaust.”

The Manatt team on the briefs included Partner  and Associate .