Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
596 U.S. 107 (2022)
Rule of Law:
In a Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) suit raising non-federal claims against a foreign state or instrumentality, a court must determine the applicable substantive law by using the same choice-of-law rule that would apply in a similar suit against a private party, which is typically the forum State’s choice-of-law rule.
Facts:
- Lilly Cassirer inherited Camille Pissarro’s painting 'Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon, Effect of Rain,' which a family member had purchased from Pissarro’s agent in 1900.
- In 1939, Lilly Cassirer was forced to surrender the painting to the Nazis to obtain an exit visa from Germany, where she faced intensifying persecution.
- Lilly Cassirer and her grandson, Claude Cassirer, eventually ended up in the United States after the war.
- The Cassirer family’s post-war search for the painting was unsuccessful for many years.
- In the early 1990s, the painting was purchased by the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, an entity created and controlled by the Kingdom of Spain.
- In 1999, Claude Cassirer learned that 'Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon, Effect of Rain' was listed in a catalogue of the Foundation’s museum.
Procedural Posture:
- Claude Cassirer sued the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation in federal district court in the Central District of California, asserting various property-law claims and invoking the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to establish jurisdiction.
- The federal district court held that the Nazi confiscation of the painting brought the suit within the FSIA’s expropriation exception, thereby removing the Foundation’s immunity from suit and allowing the case to proceed.
- The district court then applied a federal common law choice-of-law rule to determine the applicable substantive law.
- The district court further held that the federal choice-of-law rule commanded the use of Spanish property law to resolve the ownership dispute.
- After a trial, the district court determined that under Spanish law, the Foundation was the rightful owner of the painting.
- The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions, including its application of a federal choice-of-law rule and its conclusion regarding ownership under Spanish law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court in a Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) suit raising non-federal claims against a foreign state or instrumentality apply the forum State’s choice-of-law rule or a federal common law choice-of-law rule to determine the applicable substantive law?
Opinions:
Majority - justice Kagan
Yes, a court in an FSIA suit raising non-federal claims against a foreign state or instrumentality must apply the forum State’s choice-of-law rule to determine the applicable substantive law, not a rule deriving from federal common law. The Court relied on Section 1606 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which mandates that a foreign state not entitled to immunity “shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” The Court reasoned that this provision dictates that the choice-of-law rule must mirror the rule that would apply in a comparable suit between private parties to guarantee the use of the same substantive law and thus ensure identical liability. In a similar private dispute involving non-federal claims and brought in federal court in California (as this case was), the court would, under the long-standing precedent of Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., borrow the forum State’s (California’s) choice-of-law rule. Therefore, California’s choice-of-law rule must also apply in the suit against the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation to ensure it is liable in the same way as a private party. The Court further noted that there was scant justification for judicial creation of federal common law in this context, as such action is only warranted when “necessary to protect uniquely federal interests,” and even the United States government, participating as amicus curiae, disclaimed any necessity for a federal choice-of-law rule in FSIA suits raising non-federal claims.
Analysis:
This decision provides critical clarification regarding choice-of-law in Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) litigation, emphasizing that the FSIA primarily governs immunity and not the substantive law for non-federal claims. By mandating the application of the forum state's choice-of-law rules, the Court reinforces principles of federalism and the Erie doctrine, ensuring that foreign sovereign defendants are treated comparably to private parties. This ruling promotes uniform treatment between defendants regardless of sovereign status, preventing potential forum shopping or disparate outcomes based solely on the nature of the defendant, and directs future FSIA cases with non-federal claims to apply established state conflict-of-laws principles.
