Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025
Summary
Congress has enacted the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 (S.1884, Public Law 119-82), amending the 2016 Act to strengthen recovery rights for Nazi-looted art claims. The new law explicitly precludes time-based defenses including laches, adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, and usucapion, as well as non-merits discretionary defenses such as the act of state doctrine, forum non conveniens, and international comity. It also extends recovery rights to cover artwork lost due to Nazi persecution by covered governments, regardless of victim nationality, notwithstanding the domestic takings rule.
Art institutions, auction houses, and galleries that may hold works with unclear World War II-era provenance face newly barred defenses. Any art-market participant currently litigating or considering litigation involving Nazi-looted art should revisit their defense strategy — laches, adverse possession, forum non conveniens, and act of state arguments are now explicitly foreclosed by statute regardless of case history.
About this source
GovPing monitors Congress Enacted Laws (119th Congress) for new government & legislation regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 14 changes logged to date.
What changed
The Act amends the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 by adding two new purpose paragraphs (8) and (9) explicitly naming court decisions that frustrated the Act's intent, including Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art (2d Cir. 2019), Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Foundation (9th Cir. 2024), Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum (9th Cir. 2018), and Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp (2021). Section 5 is restructured to add new subsections on RSI (treating covered claims as international law violations for FSIA purposes), time-based defenses (precluding laches, adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, usucapion), and nationwide service of process. Museums, art dealers, collectors, and estates holding potentially disputed works should review provenance documentation and consider the expanded scope of potential claims now barred from these previously successful defenses.
Affected parties include owners of art potentially expropriated during the Nazi era, museums and institutions holding such works, art market participants, and legal practitioners in art restitution litigation. The Act applies retroactively to claims pending on April 13, 2026, as well as future filings.
Archived snapshot
Apr 21, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
PUBLIC LAW 119-82--APR. 13, 2026
HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT OF 2025
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:49 Apr 17, 2026 Jkt 069139 PO 00082 Frm 00001 Fmt 6579 Sfmt 6579 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL082.119 PUBL082
140 STAT. 752 PUBLIC LAW 119-82--APR. 13, 2026
Public Law 119-82 119th Congress An Act
GTo clarify the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, to appropriately Apr. 13, 2026 limit the application of defenses based on the passage of time and other non- [S. 1884] merits defenses to claims under that Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Holocaust Expropriated Art SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. Recovery Act of 2025. This Act may be cited as the ''Holocaust Expropriated Art 22 USC 1621 Recovery Act of 2025''. note.
SEC. 2. HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT OF 2016 IMPROVEMENTS. (a) I .--The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery N ENERALAct 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 prescrip- tion, 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 govern- ment (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
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:49 Apr 17, 2026 Jkt 069139 PO 00082 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL082.119 PUBL082
140 STAT. 753 PUBLIC LAW 119-82--APR. 13, 2026 and predictable manner'' and inserting ''may, in some cir-cumstances, 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 sub-sections (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) RSI.--Notwith-ELATION TOOREIGNTATEMMUNITIESstanding 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) DTON- MEFENSESDASED ONBASSAGE OFSIME ANDFTHERPON.--With respect to any claim that is otherwise ERITSEFENSEStimely under this Act-- ''(1) all defenses or substantive doctrines based on the passage of time, including laches, adverse possession, acquisi-tive 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) NP.--For a civil action ATIONWIDEERVICE OFROCESSbrought 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 defend-ant 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.''.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:49 Apr 17, 2026 Jkt 069139 PO 00082 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL082.119 PUBL082
140 STAT. 754 PUBLIC LAW 119-82--APR. 13, 2026 (b) A .--The amendments made by subsection (a) 22 USC 1621 PPLICABILITY shall apply with respect to any civil claim or cause of action that note. 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. Æ
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:49 Apr 17, 2026 Jkt 069139 PO 00082 Frm 00004 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6580 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL082.119 PUBL082
Named provisions
Citations
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Congress Enacted Laws (119th Congress)
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from Congress.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Congress Enacted Laws (119th Congress) publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.