New Bill Blocks Procedural Hurdles for Nazi-Looted Art Claims: Heirs Can Now Sue on Merit

The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 (HEAR Act) is designed to strengthen existing law and ensure that claims for art and property stolen during the Holocaust can finally be heard and decided based on the facts—the "merits"—rather than being thrown out on technicalities.

The Problem This Bill Solves

Imagine finally tracking down a piece of art your family lost during Nazi persecution, only to have your lawsuit dismissed because a judge decides too much time has passed since World War II. That’s exactly what the original 2016 HEAR Act tried to fix, but according to this new bill, some courts are still using procedural defenses to block these claims. This new legislation is a direct response, explicitly stating that the law’s intent is to allow these claims, regardless of the passage of time.

Blocking the Technicalities

This bill cuts straight to the chase by blocking specific procedural defenses that courts have used to dismiss these cases. If you are an heir filing a claim, the court can no longer use defenses based on the passage of time, such as laches (an unreasonable delay in asserting a right) or adverse possession (a claim based on long-term possession). Furthermore, courts can’t use non-merits discretionary bases for dismissal like the act of state doctrine or forum non conveniens (arguing the case should be heard in a different jurisdiction).

Essentially, the bill says: stop looking for excuses to dismiss the case before hearing the evidence. If the claim is otherwise timely under the HEAR Act, the only thing that should matter is whether the art was actually stolen by the Nazis from the claimant’s family.

Who Gets to Claim and Where You Can Sue

One key clarification is that this law applies to property lost due to Nazi persecution, regardless of the victim’s nationality or citizenship. This is important because it prevents defendants from using complex legal arguments regarding foreign takings to dismiss the case—a point made clear by explicitly overriding the implications of the Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp case. The law also clarifies that these civil claims are considered actions where rights under international law are at issue, making it easier to sue foreign entities under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

For the busy person, this means that if your family was persecuted by the Nazis, your right to sue for stolen property in the U.S. won't be limited by where your family was from or whether they were U.S. citizens at the time. Plus, the bill allows for nationwide service of process, meaning legal papers can be served anywhere in the U.S. where the defendant (say, a museum or collector) does business, making it easier for claimants to start the lawsuit.

Impact on Current Holders and Implementation

This bill is a major win for Holocaust heirs seeking justice, but it significantly changes the landscape for current possessors of potentially looted art—like museums, galleries, and private collectors. They can no longer rely on the sheer passage of time to protect their ownership. They will have to defend their possession on the merits, proving the art was not stolen, rather than simply arguing the claimant waited too long to sue.

Crucially, these amendments apply not just to future claims, but also to any civil claim that is currently pending in court, including those on appeal. This means cases that were previously dismissed on technical grounds might now be revived and decided under these new, fairer standards. The goal is clear: to prioritize historical justice over procedural convenience.