Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
Overview
Overview
Heirs of a Jewish family whose Pissarro painting was seized under Nazi coercion sued a Spanish government museum in California federal court to recover the work. The central question was whether federal common law or state choice-of-law rules determined which country's law governed the dispute. The Supreme Court unanimously held that state choice-of-law rules apply in suits against foreign sovereigns under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The Facts
Facts
In 1939, the Nazi government coerced Lilly Cassirer into surrendering a Camille Pissarro painting in exchange for an exit visa. The painting eventually passed to the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, an instrumentality of the Spanish government. Claude Cassirer's heirs sued the Foundation in the Central District of California. California's choice-of-law rules pointed to Spanish law, which gave the Foundation good title; federal common law might have produced a different result favoring the heirs.
The Issue
Issue
In a civil lawsuit against a foreign state brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, whether federal common law or state choice-of-law rules govern the determination of which jurisdiction's substantive law applies to the merits of the dispute.
The Rules
Rule
The FSIA governs the circumstances under which foreign sovereigns may be sued in American courts but is silent on what substantive law governs the merits of such suits. Where no federal rule of decision applies, federal courts sitting in diversity follow state law, including state choice-of-law rules. Federal courts do not create federal common law to displace state law in FSIA cases absent a compelling need for uniformity.
The Application
Analysis
The Court applied state choice-of-law rules to determine the governing law in the Cassirers' FSIA suit, rejecting their argument that federal common law should apply to Nazi-era property seizures. Under California's choice-of-law framework, the dispute was governed by Spanish law. The law of the state with the most significant relationship to the property and the claim. Spanish law recognized the Foundation's title to the Pissarro, even though federal common law might have favored the heirs' restitution claim based on the coercive circumstances of the 1939 seizure. As a result, applying state rather than federal law proved dispositive: the Cassirers' recovery effort failed on the merits despite the equitable appeal of their position.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The Supreme Court unanimously held that state choice-of-law rules apply in FSIA suits. Applying California's choice-of-law framework, Spanish law governed, which recognized the Foundation's title to the Pissarro. The Cassirer heirs' claim for return of the painting therefore failed on the merits.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support