Unanimous SCOTUS ruling deals blow to Holocaust survivors' case against Hungary

The horrors of the Holocaust still resonate in the hearts and minds of survivors and their families, with a recent U.S. Supreme Court case laying bare their enduring quest for accountability and a sense of justice.

Unfortunately for the group of plaintiffs seeking to force Hungary into the American judicial system over asset confiscations that occurred during World War II, the justices of the high court unanimously denied the legal theory on which they based their claims, as The Hill reports.

Background of high court dispute

At issue at the Supreme Court was a long-running controversy in which a group of Holocaust survivors and heirs sought compensation from Hungary for assets taken during the war and subsequently liquidated and “commingled” with government monies in the decades that ensued.

The dispute has been making its way through the judicial system for 14 years, and last week, the high court justices tossed an appeals court decision that permitted the case to continue even in the face of a federal statute shielding sovereign states such as Hungary from being sued in American courts, as ABC News explains.

The lower court had determined that the survivors -- now over 90 years of age -- had fulfilled the requirements for an exception within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that is granted in relation to “property taken in violation of international law.”

In order to qualify under that exception, claimants need to demonstrate that the property has a commercial tie to the United States, and the survivors contended that Hungary had sold their property, mixed the resulting proceeds with its general fund monies, and used them to issue government bonds and buy military equipment in America.

High court says no

Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that “a commingling theory, without more,” does not “satisfy the commercial nexus requirement” needed to give rise to the exception's application.

The opinion expressed sympathy with the federal government's stated concern about the case, stating that if the case moved forward it had the potential to “undermine the United States' foreign relations and reciprocal self-interest” as well as its “conformity with international law.”

Elaborating on that stance, Sotomayor wrote, “Ultimately, today's decision concerns only what plaintiffs must plead to bring suit against foreign sovereigns for their actions abroad in the courts of the United States.”

“That a particular claim cannot satisfy the expropriation exception means only that it cannot be brought here, not that it cannot be brought in any forum,” the opinion went on.

Concerns of international fallout expressed

Perhaps ultimately fatal to the survivors' claims in this case were concerns that emerged during December's oral arguments in the case, which revealed worries from some of the justices that there would be undesirable international fallout if the case were to proceed.

That contention was scrutinized by the 1939 Society, a group of Holocaust survivors who suggested, as CNN noted, that it represented “a surprising abdication of America's historic leadership role in obtaining redress for Holocaust victims,” but in the end, that argument did not win the day at the high court.