Month: March 2021

On February 3, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp. The court also issued a one-sentence opinion vacating a lower-court ruling in Republic of Hungary v. Simon, a similar lawsuit brought by Holocaust survivors seeking compensation for Hungary’s confiscation of Jewish property. The justices sent Hungary v. Simon back to the lower courts for further proceedings in light of the opinion in Germany v. Philipp.
Germany v. Phillip arises out of lawsuit brought by the heirs of several Jewish art dealers who are seeking compensation for what they describe as the forced sale of medieval Christian relics under the Nazi regime. The respondents filed a lawsuit in federal court in the District of Columbia, invoking the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” as the jurisdictional basis for their claims. Germany moved to dismiss, and the district court largely denied the motion, holding the claims fell within the scope of the expropriation exception. Germany appealed, and the U.S. Appeals Court for D.C. affirmed as to jurisdiction, reiterating its holding in a prior case that a genocidal taking is a violation of international law and rejecting Germany’s argument based on principles of international comity.
In a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court vacated the lower-court ruling that allowed the lawsuit to go forward, agreeing with Germany that the lawsuit does not fall within an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally bars lawsuits against foreign governments in U.S. courts.
Alberto Coll, Vincent de Paul Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law, joins us today to discuss this ruling and its implications.

On February 24, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lange v. California. The question before the court was whether the pursuit of a person whom a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor categorically qualifies as an exigent circumstance sufficient to allow the officer to enter a home without a warrant. In this case, Arthur Lange was driving home on the highway in Sonoma, California when police pursued Lange with the intention of conducting a traffic stop. Police followed Lange home and activated their overhead lights once Lange pulled into his home's driveway. Lange pulled into his garage and the garage door began closing behind him. Police approached Lange and stopped the garage from closing with his foot. After brief questioning as to whether Lange knew he was being pursued, police stated they smelled alcohol on Lange's breath and charged Lange with driving under the influence.
The trial court concluded that the officer had probable cause, denied the motion to suppress, and issued a conviction for Lange. Later, a civil court ruled that Lange's arrest was unlawful and an appellate court ruled that the arrest was lawful. On appeal to the California First District Court of Appeal, the court affirmed the conviction.
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute and Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, join us today to discuss this argument and its implications.