Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 Improvements
Section 2 · Sec. 2 ·
What this chapter is about
This part changes a law from 2016. That law is about art the Nazis took. It lets people go to court to get art back. Now judges may not throw out these cases for some old reasons. One reason was that too much time went by.
The document says “must”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“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.”
A new paragraph (8) inserted into section 2 of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note), after the existing paragraph (7). The paragraph states that the intent of that Act is to permit claims to recover Nazi-looted art to be brought notwithstanding the passage of time since World War II, states that some courts have frustrated that intent by dismissing recovery lawsuits, and names the defenses it means: laches, adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, usucapion, the act of state doctrine, forum non conveniens, international comity, and prudential exhaustion. It cites three decisions as examples, Zuckerman v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 928 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2019), Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Foundation, 89 F.4th 1226 (9th Cir. 2024), and Von Saher v Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 897 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2018). This law does not state what any of those decisions held.
What the document actually says
“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.”
That sentence, in plain words
The old law was meant to let these cases be heard. So these court reasons for saying no must be shut off.
What this is about
Congress says here what it meant in 2016. It says some judges got it wrong. They threw out cases because many years had passed. Congress says that must stop.
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.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“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 government (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”
A new paragraph (9) inserted into section 2 of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note). It states that the 2016 Act is also intended to allow claims for artwork or other property lost during the covered period because of Nazi persecution, including loss caused by a covered government as defined in section 1605(h)(3)(B) of title 28, United States Code, or by an agent or associate of one, whatever the nationality or citizenship of the alleged victim. The paragraph closes by saying this holds notwithstanding the domestic takings rule under Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. 169 (2021). This law does not state what that decision held.
What the document actually says
“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 government (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”
That sentence, in plain words
This law also lets people ask for art lost to Nazi harm. It does not matter what country the owner was from.
What this is about
The old law had a gap. A court said a country taking from its own people was not covered. Congress says here that those claims count too.
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.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“by striking "will yield just and fair resolutions in a more efficient and predictable manner" and inserting "may, in some circumstances, yield just and fair resolutions as well"”
The existing paragraph (8) of section 2 of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note) is renumbered as paragraph (10), so that the two new paragraphs can be inserted ahead of it, and this swap is then made inside it. What the paragraph says apart from the struck and inserted words is not stated in this law.
What the document actually says
“by striking "will yield just and fair resolutions in a more efficient and predictable manner" and inserting "may, in some circumstances, yield just and fair resolutions as well"”
That sentence, in plain words
This law strikes words that said one path gives fair results in a fast, sure way. It puts in words saying that path may sometimes give fair results as well.
What this is about
The old law had a line about how to settle these fights. This law swaps some of the words in that line. The new words are less sure about it.
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.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“in section 3(2), by inserting "and other non-merits defenses" after "statutes of limitation"”
An insertion into section 3(2) of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note). The words and other non-merits defenses are placed after the words statutes of limitation. What the rest of section 3(2) says is not stated in this law.
What the document actually says
“in section 3(2), by inserting "and other non-merits defenses" after "statutes of limitation"”
That sentence, in plain words
It adds four words to another part of the old law. The words are 'and other non-merits defenses'.
What this is about
A merits defense is about the facts of the case. A non-merits defense is not. It is a reason to end a case for some other cause.
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.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“in section 5-- (A) by striking subsection (g); (B) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (h) and (i), respectively; (C) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively”
Subsection (g) of section 5 of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note) is removed, and five other subsections are moved to new letters: (e) and (f) become (h) and (i), and (b), (c) and (d) become (c), (d) and (e). That clears the letters (b), (f) and (g) for the new subsections this section inserts. A conforming change follows: in the subsection now lettered (d), a pointer to subsection (e) is struck and a pointer to subsection (h) put in its place, so that it still reaches the same text. This law does not state what the struck subsection (g) provided or what any of the moved subsections say.
What the document actually says
“in section 5-- (A) by striking subsection (g); (B) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (h) and (i), respectively; (C) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively”
That sentence, in plain words
This part cuts one lettered part out of the old law. It moves other lettered parts to new letters.
What this is about
Laws are split into lettered parts. To add new ones, the old ones shift. The letters change but most words stay.
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.
The document says “shall”Who acts: courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Notwithstanding 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.”
A new subsection (b) inserted into section 5 of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note), after subsection (a). Claims covered by subsection (a) of that section are to be treated as actions in which rights in violation of international law are in issue for purposes of section 1605(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, and the nationality or citizenship of the alleged victim does not bear on that. The instruction applies notwithstanding any other law or prior judicial decision. This law does not state which claims subsection (a) covers or what section 1605(a)(3) of title 28 provides.
What the document actually says
“Notwithstanding 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.”
That sentence, in plain words
These cases count as ones about rights taken against world law. That is true no matter what country the owner was from.
What this is about
Other countries can be sued in US courts only in set cases. One set is about rights taken in ways world law bars. This part puts these art claims in that set.
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.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking "Subsection (a)" and inserting "Subsections (a), (b), (f), and (g)"”
A change to the matter preceding paragraph (1) of the subsection of section 5 of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note) now lettered (e). The words struck name one subsection, and the words put in name four: (a), (b), (f) and (g), which are the subsection that was already there and the three this section adds. What the rest of that subsection says is not stated in this law.
What the document actually says
“in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking "Subsection (a)" and inserting "Subsections (a), (b), (f), and (g)"”
That sentence, in plain words
The words struck named one lettered part. The words put in name four of them.
What this is about
A part of the old law points at other parts. The list of them just got longer.
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.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“in paragraph (2), by striking "during the period" and all that follows and inserting "on or after the date of enactment of this Act."”
A change to paragraph (2) of the subsection of section 5 of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note) now lettered (e). Everything from the words during the period to the end of the paragraph is struck, and the words on or after the date of enactment of this Act are put in its place. What the struck words said, and what the paragraph does with the date, are not stated in this law.
What the document actually says
“in paragraph (2), by striking "during the period" and all that follows and inserting "on or after the date of enactment of this Act."”
That sentence, in plain words
It cuts the end of one part and puts in a new end. The new end names the day this law is signed.
What this is about
The old words set a time frame. The new words say: on or after the day this law starts.
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.
The document says “may not”Who acts: courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
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”
That sentence, in plain words
A judge may not toss the case just because a lot of time went by.
What this is about
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.
The document says “may not”Who acts: courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
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”
That sentence, in plain words
A judge may not toss the case for other reasons that skip the facts.
What this is about
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.
The document says “can”Who acts: a party bringing a civil actionHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“For a civil action brought 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 defendant may be found, resides, has an agent, or transacts business.”
A new subsection (g) inserted into section 5 of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note). It covers civil actions brought under subsection (a) of that section, in a State court or a Federal one. Service may be made in the district where the case is brought, or in any other judicial district of the United States where the defendant may be found, resides, has an agent, or transacts business. This law does not state which actions subsection (a) covers.
What the document actually says
“For a civil action brought 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 defendant may be found, resides, has an agent, or transacts business.”
That sentence, in plain words
Court papers can be handed to the other side in any part of the country.
What this is about
A case starts by giving papers to the person you sue. Often that must happen near the court. Here it can happen in any US court district.
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.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“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.”
A new section 6, headed Severability, added at the end of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note). Within that Act, holding one provision invalid, or invalid as applied to a particular person or circumstance, leaves the rest of the Act and the other applications of that provision standing.
What the document actually says
“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.”
That sentence, in plain words
If a court says one part of the law is bad, the rest still stands.
What this is about
Laws often carry a rule like this. It keeps one bad part from sinking the whole law.
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.
The document says “shall apply”Who acts: courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any civil claim or cause of action that 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.”
Subsection (b) of this section, which sets the reach of everything subsection (a) does. The amendments apply to a claim or cause of action pending in any court on the date of enactment, and the subsection says that includes one pending on appeal and one for which the time to file an appeal has not expired. They also apply to a claim or cause of action filed on or after that date. The law was approved on April 13, 2026.
What the document actually says
“The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any civil claim or cause of action that 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.”
That sentence, in plain words
The changes cover cases already in court on the day this law starts. They also cover cases filed later.
What this is about
New laws often cover only new cases. This one reaches back. A case that is on appeal still counts.
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.
Each distinct thing the section does: the two findings paragraphs it inserts into section 2 of the 2016 Act, the words it swaps in the paragraph it renumbers as paragraph (10), the four words it inserts into section 3(2), the striking and relettering of the subsections of section 5, the new subsection on foreign state immunities, the two changes to the redesignated subsection (e), the new subsection barring time based and non-merits defenses, the new subsection on service of process, the severability section it adds at the end, and the sentence saying which cases the amendments reach.
Nothing in the section is left out. The conforming cross-reference in the redesignated subsection (d), which changes a pointer from subsection (e) to subsection (h), is described in the proposal that records the relettering rather than quoted on its own, because it does nothing but follow that relettering.
The section works by amending the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note), and that Act is not indexed here. So the site does not record what sections 2, 3 and 5 of that Act said before these amendments, what the struck subsection (g) of section 5 provided, what subsections (a) and (e) of section 5 provide, or how that Act reads once these amendments apply. The section also cites section 1605 of title 28, United States Code, and several court decisions, and none of those are indexed here either, so the site does not record what any of them hold. A reader following a citation into the 2016 Act will find the older wording until this one is applied.
