Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:43:15.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena: California's Temporary Suspension of the Statute of Limitations in Holocaust Art Cases Violates the Foreign Affairs Doctrine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2010

Andrew Adler
Andrew Adler
Affiliation:
University of Miami School of Law. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2002, the California state legislature enacted a law temporarily suspending the statute of limitations in certain Holocaust art cases. In doing so, it removed a major procedural obstacle facing plaintiffs and effectively revived claims once considered time-barred. Seven years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena that this California law was unconstitutional under the foreign affairs doctrine, because it impermissibly intruded on the federal government's exclusive power to make and resolve war. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit became the first court in the United States to restrict the authority of the states to inject themselves into the realm of Holocaust art litigation.

Type
Case Note
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 109 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, Andrew. “Expanding the Scope of Museums' Ethical Obligations with Respect to Nazi-Looted Art: Incorporating Restitution Claims Based on Private Sales made as a Direct Result of Persecution.” International Journal of Cultural Property 14 (2007): 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Association of Museums. Guidelines Concerning the Unlawful Appropriation of Objects During the Nazi Era. ⟨http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/nazi_guidelines.cfm⟩ (November 1999, amended April 2001) accessed February 2, 2010.Google Scholar
Association of Art Museum Directors. Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Spoliation of Art during the Nazi/World War II Era (1933–1945). ⟨http://www.aamd.org/papers/guideln.php⟩ (June 1998, amended April 2001) accessed February 2, 2010.Google Scholar
Bibas, Steven A. “The Case Against Statutes of Limitations for Stolen Art.” Yale Law Journal 103 (1994): 2437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilder, Richard B. “The Role of States and Cities in Foreign Relations.” American Journal of International Law 83 (1989): 821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Stephen W. “World War II Restitution Cases.” Legal Issues in Museum Administration, edited by American Law Institute and American Bar Association, SP 035 (2009): 371.Google Scholar
Copyright Litigation Blog, Nazi Looted Art in U.S. Museums: Amb. Stuart Eizenstat's Call for a US Commission. ⟨http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com/2009/08/nazi-looted-art-in-us-museums-amb.html⟩ (August 10, 2009) accessed February 2, 2010.Google Scholar
Cuba, Stephanie. “Stop the Clock: The Case to Suspend the Statute of Limitations on Claims for Nazi-Looted Art.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 17 (1999): 447.Google Scholar
Denning, Brannon P., and Ramsey, Michael D. “American Insurance Association v. Garamendi and Executive Preemption in Foreign Affairs.” William and Mary Law Review 46 (2004): 825.Google Scholar
Dugot, Monica. “The Holocaust Claims Processing Office's Handling of Art Claims.” Fordham International Law Journal 25 (2001): 133.Google Scholar
Eizenstat, Stuart E. “Opening Plenary Session Remarks at Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference.” ⟨http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2009/126158.htm⟩ (June 28, 2009) accessed February 2, 2010.Google Scholar
Falconer, Kelly Ann. “When Honor Will Not Suffice: The Need for a Legally Binding International Agreement Regarding Ownership of Looted Art.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 21 (2000): 383.Google Scholar
Genocchio, Benjamin. “Seized, Reclaimed and Now on View.” New York Times ⟨http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/27brucect.html⟩ (April 27, 2008) accessed February 2, 2010.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. “Cultural Property and World War II: Some Implications for American Museums: A Legal Background.” Legal Problems in Museum Administration, edited by American Law Institute and American Bar Association, SC 40 (1998): 17.Google Scholar
Gouveia, Georgette. “The Circle of Art.” Lower Hudson Journal News. ⟨http://www.lohud.com/article/20080504/ENTERTAINMENT/805040339/The-circle-of-art⟩ (May 4, 2008) accessed February 2, 2010.Google Scholar
Holocaust Claims Processing Office. Report to the New York State Banking Department. New York State Banking Department. ⟨http://www.claims.state.ny.us/report09.pdf⟩ (January 15, 2010) (accessed February 2, 2010).Google Scholar
Kaye, Lawrence M. “Looted Art: What Can and Should be Done.” Cardozo Law Review 20 (1998): 657.Google Scholar
Kaye, Lawrence M. “Avoidance and Resolution of Cultural Heritage Disputes: Recovery of Art Looted During the Holocaust.” Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution 14 (2006): 243.Google Scholar
Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. “Reconciling Individual and Group Justice with the Need for Repose in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes.” Brooklyn Law Review 73 (2007): 155.Google Scholar
Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. “U.S. Museums' Use of Declaratory Judgment Actions in Nazi-Looted Art Disputes.” Art, Cultural Institutions and Heritage Law Committee Newsletter, edited by International Bar Association Legal Practice Division (October 2007): 7.Google Scholar
Lerner, Ralph E. “The Nazi Art Theft Problem and the Role of the Museum: A Proposed Solution to Disputes over Title.” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 31 (1998): 15.Google Scholar
Lippman, Matthew. “Art and Ideology in the Third Reich: The Protection of Cultural Property and the Humanitarian Law of War.” Dickinson Journal of International Law 17 (1998): 1.Google Scholar
Meltzer, Daniel J. “Customary International Law, Foreign Affairs, and Federal Common Law.” Virginia Journal of International Law 42 (2002): 513.Google Scholar
Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the U.S., About the Commission. ⟨http://www.pcha.gov/aboutpcha.htm⟩ accessed February 2, 2010.Google Scholar
Range, Daniel. “Deaccessioning and Its Costs in the Holocaust Art Context: The United States and Great Britain.” Texas International Law Journal 39 (2004): 655.Google Scholar
Redman, Lauren F. “A Wakeup Call for a Uniform Statute of Limitations in Art Restitution Cases.” UCLA Entertainment Law Review 15 (2008): 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, David J. “Nazi-Era Art Claims in the United States: 10 Years after the Washington Conference.” Art and Cultural Heritage Law Newsletter, edited by the American Bar Association Section of International Law (Spring 2009): 30.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Daniel. “Repatriation: A Modest Proposal.” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 31 (1998): 95.Google Scholar
Stone, Geoffrey R., et al. Constitutional Law, 5th ed.New York, NY: Aspen, 2005.Google Scholar
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Map of the Ninth Circuit. ⟨http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000135⟩ accessed February 2, 2010.Google Scholar