Non-merits grounds for dismissal may not be applied
What the document says“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”
Paragraph (2) of the new subsection (f) inserted into section 5 of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note). It carries the same opening words as paragraph (1), with respect to any claim that is otherwise timely under this Act. Four doctrines are named as included, along with similar doctrines unrelated to the merits: the act of state doctrine, international comity, forum non conveniens and prudential exhaustion. This law does not state what any of those doctrines require.
What the document actually says“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”
A judge may not toss the case for other reasons that skip the facts.
Some rules let a judge end a case without weighing who is right. One says a court should not judge another state's acts. Another says a different court is a better fit. Those do not count here.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.