Congress has moved to give new life to a law aimed at helping families recover art stolen during the Holocaust, while reopening a long-running battle between heirs and the institutions that still preserve the works.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Monday approved an extension of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act (HEAR), which was enacted in 2016 to make it easier for descendants of victims to demand restitution decades after the fact. This measure is based on New York Times, The bill passed the Senate unanimously and now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk.
Related articles
Essentially, this change is about time. The original law gave heirs up to six years after discovering looted works to bring claims, sidestepping the usual statute of limitations arguments that museums often use to block cases. But courts still sometimes use the decades-long period to dismiss claims, arguing that it leaves the current owners without a fair defense.
The new bill seeks to close that door. It would limit the ability of museums and other holders to rely on time-based defenses, effectively pushing more cases to be decided on merits rather than procedural grounds.
Supporters say this is long overdue. Lawmakers supporting the bill argued that some institutions had been consolidating and filing lawsuits for years to retain works taken under duress. Meanwhile, advocacy groups say the existing system still favors current owners too much.
Not surprisingly, museums feel differently. The Association of Art Museum Directors supports extending the law, albeit on a different version. Its representatives warned that stripping away certain defenses could subvert fundamental legal principles and strain relations with foreign governments, particularly where state collections are involved.
International cases are more complex. The legislation also targets sovereign immunity, the principle that typically protects foreign governments from being sued in U.S. courts. Under the new language, Nazi-era seizures would be explicitly considered violations of international law, potentially allowing more cases against foreign institutions to proceed.
The shift could reignite disputes that appeared to have been resolved. An oft-cited example is the Guelph Treasures, a collection of medieval artifacts sold in 1935 under pressure from the Nazi regime. U.S. courts have previously declined to hear the case, but the new bill could change how similar claims are handled in the future.
Foreign governments are watching closely. While confirming the return commitment, German officials also expressed concern about the erosion of sovereign immunity and argued that such claims should be handled within the national legal system. French entities have expressed similar uneasiness about U.S. courts overturning existing frameworks.
But for the claimants, the stakes were immediate. Lawyers representing heirs in ongoing cases, such as those seeking the return of Egon Schiele works associated with the collection of cabaret artist Fritz Grünbaum, say the changes could be decisive, especially where foreign museums rely on immunity defenses.
Even so, the law cannot solve all problems. In many disputes, the facts themselves remain in dispute: whether the sale was forced, whether ownership can be clearly established, and whether sufficient evidence exists. What this bill does is shift the battleground from procedural hurdles to fundamental issues.
