In 1939, Lilly Cassirer, a Jewish woman living in Germany, faced an unimaginable decision. A stunning Impressionist painting depicting a rainy Parisian street scene, which adorned her home’s walls, was exchanged with a Nazi art dealer for papers allowing her to flee the country. This exchange, far from fair, saw her relinquish a precious artwork for a chance at safety.
Over time, her family traced the origins of this painting, “Rue Saint-Honoré, Après-midi, Effet de Pluie” by Camille Pissarro, only to find it displayed at the Thyssen-Bornemisza National Museum in Madrid. For two decades, the Cassirer descendants have battled in courtrooms, seeking to reclaim the painting everyone agrees was unjustly taken by the Nazis. It’s disheartening that they are still in this fight.
The family is now looking to the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in this prolonged dispute. This time, they’re buoyed by recent developments—a California piece of legislation, Assembly Bill 2867. Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September after passing in August, this law mandates that California courts apply state law when residents or their families seek to recover stolen art from museums.
The Supreme Court has a chance to set things right and needs to seize it.
Before this legislation, when Californians sued foreign entities like the Spanish museum, courts had to choose between applying California law or the law of the entity’s home country. Under California law, a thief has no legal rights to stolen property, nor does anyone who acquires it afterwards. By contrast, Spanish law allows holders of stolen items to keep them if enough time has passed.
In the Cassirer case, a federal district court applied Spanish law, allowing the museum to retain the painting. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed this decision, siding with the lower court’s ruling.
The Cassirers, however, argue that with the new California statute, the 9th Circuit’s ruling conflicts with current state law. They urge the Supreme Court to nullify the previous decision and remand the case to the 9th Circuit, which should adhere to this statute and overturn the earlier judgment, facilitating the painting’s return to the family.
We anticipate this favorable outcome, not only because it is just but also aligns with broader international norms. The California Legislature specifically crafted the new law to bring state law in line with federal laws, policies, and international accords opposing the looting and seizing of artworks, advocating for the restitution of confiscated cultural property.
In past cases, even judges have expressed discomfort with outcomes. Judge Consuelo Callahan of the 9th Circuit acknowledged approving decisions that clashed with their moral compasses, admitting that this case represented such a conflict. Similarly, U.S. District Judge John F. Walter lamented that he couldn’t compel the museum to meet its moral obligations as outlined by powerful but non-binding international treaties, which most countries, including Spain, signed to advocate for the return of art stolen by Nazis.
Now, California’s new legislation enables judges to render decisions that align legal rulings with moral considerations.
However, the Spanish government, which owns the museum, need not wait for legal decisions. It could take the moral high ground and return the painting to its rightful owners, achieving long-awaited justice swiftly.
