On April 13, 2026, S. 1884, the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025, was signed into law as Public Law 119-82. The law permanently removed the procedural barriers that had allowed U.S. courts to dismiss Holocaust art restitution claims without ever reaching the merits — a problem that had frustrated victims' families for decades despite a prior 2016 statute intended to solve it.

The bill was introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and had 21 co-sponsors. Its passage came more than nine years after the original Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, which had attempted to clear those procedural hurdles but was subsequently gutted by a series of federal appellate court decisions.

Background: The Problem the Law Fixes

Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically looted an estimated one million artworks from Jewish families between 1933 and 1945. Many of those works ended up in U.S. museums, private collections, and foreign government institutions. After World War II, some families tried to recover them through U.S. courts.

Those cases ran into a procedural wall. U.S. courts dismissed them on grounds that had nothing to do with who actually owned the art: the statute of limitations had expired (laches), the court was the wrong venue (forum non conveniens), international comity required deference to foreign governments, or the foreign government defendant enjoyed immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Congress tried to fix this in 2016 with the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act (HEAR Act). But subsequent appellate rulings — including from the Second Circuit in Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art (2019) and the Ninth Circuit in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Foundation (2024) and Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art (2018) — interpreted the 2016 law narrowly, effectively allowing courts to continue dismissing cases on the same procedural grounds the HEAR Act was meant to eliminate.

What S. 1884 Actually Changed

The 2026 law amends the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 in four specific ways, each aimed at closing loopholes the courts had exploited:

Bars all time-based dismissal defenses. New Section 5(f) prohibits courts from dismissing Holocaust art claims based on laches, adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, or usucapion — the time-based doctrines courts had used to dismiss cases even when the original claim was valid.

Bars non-merits discretionary dismissals. The same provision bars dismissal based on the act of state doctrine, international comity, forum non conveniens, and prudential exhaustion — the discretionary procedural grounds courts had used to avoid deciding whether claims had merit.

Overrides the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barrier. New Section 5(b) deems Holocaust art claims to be actions involving violations of international law for FSIA purposes — regardless of the nationality of the victim. This directly overrides the Supreme Court's 2021 ruling in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. 169, which had held that the "domestic takings rule" barred FSIA jurisdiction over property seized from a country's own nationals.

Removes the filing deadline. The 2016 law required all claims to be filed by December 31, 2026. S. 1884 eliminates that deadline, replacing it with a perpetual filing window subject to a six-year discovery period — measured from when the claimant learns of the artwork's location, not from a fixed date.

Applies retroactively. All of these changes apply to cases currently pending, including cases pending on appeal or within the appeal filing window. Families whose cases were dismissed could refile or seek reconsideration under the new framework.

Who Voted For It

The bill passed both chambers with strong bipartisan support. Senator Cornyn, the sponsor, is a Republican from Texas; the 21 co-sponsors included members from both parties. The bill did not receive a recorded roll call vote in either chamber — it passed by unanimous consent, meaning no senator or representative formally objected.

Passage by unanimous consent for this legislation reflects how uncontroversial it was in its final form. The bill's underlying policy — allowing courts to hear Holocaust art restitution claims on their merits — did not generate organized opposition.

What It Means for Pending Cases

The retroactive application provision means that cases dismissed in the past several years on the procedural grounds now barred can be refiled or reconsidered. The practical impact depends on how many cases were dismissed on those grounds, how many families have the resources to pursue litigation, and how courts apply the new standard to specific factual records.

Legal scholars who have written about the prior HEAR Act note that retroactive application of procedural changes raises its own complexity — courts must evaluate whether a case that was dismissed on laches grounds would have been timely under the new framework. S. 1884 doesn't resolve those factual questions; it removes the procedural ceiling that had prevented them from being decided.

Primary Sources