Woman can sue in US over art looted by Nazis
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The US Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Americans can sue foreign governments over looted art, stolen property and war crimes dating to the 1930s, a victory for an elderly California woman trying to get back $150m (£81m) worth of paintings stolen by the Nazis more than 65 years ago.
The US Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Americans can sue foreign governments over looted art, stolen property and war crimes dating to the 1930s, a victory for an elderly California woman trying to get back $150m (£81m) worth of paintings stolen by the Nazis more than 65 years ago.
The Supreme Court judges said that governments were not necessarily protected from lawsuits in US courts over old claims. Maria Altmann, 88, said the court was one of her last hopes for the return of six Gustav Klimt paintings, including two portraits of her aunt, looted by the Nazis.At issue in the case was a 1976 law that spelt out when other countries can be sued in the US. The law was based on a 1952 State Department policy. The Supreme Court ruled that the law is retroactive, and can be used to bring old claims.
Dissenting, Justice Anthony M Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice William H Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, said the decision "injected great prospective uncertainty into our relations with foreign sovereigns".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments