On 16 March, the United States House of Representatives followed the Senate in passing an expanded version of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (Hear) Act of 2025, which is intended to aid in the recovery of works that were lost or stolen during the Nazi era. It previously passed the Senate and is now awaiting president Donald Trump’s signature. The legislation fundamentally alters the legal landscape for both claimants seeking to recover lost art and current owners—whether individuals, art dealers or institutions—who have works that may be subject to claims.
We will learn much from the courts’ work in applying the legislation
The initial version of the Hear Act, which extended the statute of limitations for art lost due to persecution during the Nazi era, was passed in 2016. Specifically, the Hear Act of 2016 created a new six-year statute of limitations running from the date that the claimant had actual knowledge of both their claim to the work and its current location. This new statute of limitations was longer than usual, and it started running later. Practically, the statute’s actual discovery requirement meant that, in some cases, the statute of limitations had not begun to run on Nazi-era takings that occurred decades earlier.
Although claims moved forward under the Hear Act of 2016, recoveries remained elusive. To my knowledge, only one civil case citing the act actually resulted in a court order requiring a current owner to hand over art to claimants (Reif v. Nagy). Other claims were denied on so-called “procedural grounds” or “technical defences”. These defences include “laches” (which prevent claimants from recovering property because a delay in bringing a claim has resulted in prejudice to the current holder); the act of state doctrine (which holds that US courts will generally not review the acts of a foreign sovereign undertaken in its own territory); and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (which generally renders foreign sovereigns immune from lawsuits in the US).
Gaps remain
The underlying goals of the Hear Act of 2025 are to make permanent the new statute of limitations from the 2016 act and, through the elimination of “technical defences”, to enable pending and future claims to be resolved solely on their merits. But that may not be so simple. In relying on laches, the most commonly used of the “technical defences”, courts have held that the current holder was prejudiced because, decades later, the evidence that has survived is insufficient for us to know exactly what happened and whether claims were valid. Legislation cannot repair gaps in the historical record.
Additionally, previously litigated cases would not necessarily have had different outcomes under the Hear Act of 2025. In Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, the claimants alleged a sale under duress. The second circuit court of appeals denied the claim based on laches, which would no longer be possible under the Hear Act of 2025. But that was an appeal from the lower court’s decision dismissing the claim “[f]or failure to allege duress”. So, even the Hear Act of 2025 might not have saved the claim.
It is difficult to predict the Hear Act of 2025’s future effects. We will learn much from the courts’ work in applying the legislation. Arguments about the act’s constitutionality are already being raised. And we may not be able to see many things that do happen. The mere existence of the Hear Act of 2025 may encourage out-of-court settlements that will remain private. But whatever happens, this is certainly one of the most significant moments for Nazi-era art claims in the US in a generation.
- Frank Lord is the senior counsel of Withers Art and Advisory and a member of Withers’s art law team
