[119th Congress Public Law 82]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[[Page 751]]
HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT OF 2025
[[Page 140 STAT. 752]]
Public Law 119-82
119th Congress
An Act
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. <<NOTE: Apr. 13, 2026 - [S. 1884]>>
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Holocaust
Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025.>>
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 22 USC 1621 note.>> 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 of Art at
Pasadena, 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
[[Page 140 STAT. 753]]
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
section 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.''.
[[Page 140 STAT. 754]]
(b) <<NOTE: 22 USC 1621 note.>> 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.
Approved April 13, 2026.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1884:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 171 (2025):
Dec. 10, considered and passed
Senate.
Vol. 172 (2026):
Mar. 16, considered and passed
House.
<all>