Defenses based on the passage of time may not be applied
What the document says“all defenses or substantive doctrines based on the passage of time, including laches, adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, and usucapion, may not be applied with respect to the claim”
Paragraph (1) of a new subsection (f) inserted into section 5 of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note). The subsection opens with the words with respect to any claim that is otherwise timely under this Act, so the bar reaches claims that already meet that Act's own time limits. Four doctrines are named as included, and the list is not closed: laches, adverse possession, acquisitive prescription and usucapion. This law does not state what any of those doctrines require or when a claim is otherwise timely.
What the document actually says“all defenses or substantive doctrines based on the passage of time, including laches, adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, and usucapion, may not be applied with respect to the claim”
A judge may not toss the case just because a lot of time went by.
Courts have rules that cut off old claims. Some say you waited too long. Some say the holder kept the art long enough to own it. Those rules 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.