Publication
The Revised HEAR Act: Expanded Opportunities for Owners and Heirs to Recover Nazi-Looted Art
On April 13, 2026, the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act of 2025 (the “25 Act”) was signed into U.S. federal law as Public Law 119-81 (140 Stat. 751). The 25 Act grants owners and their heirs expanded opportunities to recover art stolen by Germany’s Nazi regime.
Genesis of the 25 Act
The 25 Act amends the HEAR Act of 2016 (the “16 Act”), which was originally enacted to overcome U.S. state statute of limitations defenses raised by collectors, foreign governments, and museums in response to restitution lawsuits. The 16 Act allowed claims to proceed for up to six years after a claimant had actual knowledge of the identity, location, and right to a possessory interest in the art. It addressed art taken from Nazi regime victims between January 1, 1933, and December 31, 1945, and overrode U.S. state laws regarding statutes of limitations. The 16 Act was set to expire on January 1, 2027.
The 16 Act did not, however, address equitable sovereign immunity, and forum defenses to lawsuits seeking restitution. This became increasingly problematic for original art owners and their heirs, whose lawsuits were often dismissed based on the equitable doctrine of laches1, the principle of international comity2, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens3. Equitable doctrines such as laches are effective outside of statutory limitation periods and, in Nazi-looting cases, proved to be a powerful defense against victim art owners and their heirs. The 25 Act’s opening section makes express reference to this issue in terms of frustration with U.S. court rulings:
“(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 prescription, or usucapion4 (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.”
Key Points of the 25 Act
The 25 Act expands the ability of claimants to file and maintain lawsuits in several ways:
- The 16 Act’s “sunset” deadline to file suit by January 1, 2027 is eliminated.
- A claimant now has six years from actual discovery of the facts giving rise to a claim to file a lawsuit with no statutory “sunset” deadline.
- It explicitly incorporates the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) “Expropriation Exception” to sovereign immunity, which precludes suits against foreign states unless “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.” The 25 Act allows claimants to proceed without having to prove that the art was taken “in violation of international law.” That violation is presumed for purposes of the 25 Act, giving a U.S. court jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign.
- Claims pending at the time of the enactment of the 25 Act (at the district court level or on appeal) are subject to it, not only newly filed cases.
Reactions and Takeaways
According to U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), one of the 25 Act’s proponents, there are apparently over 100,000 pieces of Nazi-looted art unaccounted for. The 25 Act is viewed by many as a just step in allowing the victims of Nazi art theft and their heirs to more easily prosecute claims in U.S. courts. Some critics of the 25 Act worry about the limitations on a court’s ability to exercise its equitable powers and consider the 25 Act an improper encroachment by Congress on judicial functions. Others express concerns about international diplomatic fallout, specifically regarding the incorporation of FSIA’s expropriation exception as a presumption in lawsuits brought under the 25 Act.
Regardless, there will likely be more litigation filed and more litigation surviving early motions to dismiss. Museums, collectors, owners, and dealers should re-engage in a robust provenance review of their holdings to ensure there are no gaps in verifiable ownership history during the Nazi era (January 1, 1933, and December 31, 1945).
Footnotes
-
The common law doctrine of laches is an affirmative defense to a claim based upon the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. It is defined as neglect to assert a right or claim which, taken together with lapse of time causes unfair prejudice to the adverse party.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court once broadly described the principle as, “the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation.” Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1895).
-
Latin for “inconvenient forum.” An affirmative defense raised seeking dismissal of a lawsuit. It is a doctrine allowing a court to dismiss a case, even if it has jurisdiction, because it finds that a different, foreign court is a more appropriate and convenient venue for one or both parties.
-
A Roman law term used in civil law countries for real and personal property akin to the common law’s adverse possession rule in real property.
About Snell & Wilmer
Founded in 1938, Snell & Wilmer is a full-service business law firm with more than 500 attorneys practicing in 17 locations throughout the United States and in Mexico, including Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; Los Angeles, Orange County, Palo Alto and San Diego, California; Denver, Colorado; Washington, D.C.; Boise, Idaho; Las Vegas and Reno-Tahoe, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington; and Los Cabos, Mexico. The firm represents clients ranging from large, publicly traded corporations to small businesses, individuals and entrepreneurs. For more information, visit swlaw.com.
