Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp.
The Supreme Court addressed whether Germany was immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) for claims related to the alleged coerced sale of the Welfenschatz collection. The Court determined that the FSIA's expropriation exception refers to violations of the international law of expropriation, not human rights law. The case was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp.
The Court held that the phrase 'rights in property taken in violation of international law' in the FSIA's expropriation exception refers to violations of the international law of expropriation.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why State Sovereign Immunity is relevant to Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
The case primarily deals with the issue of whether Germany is immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which is a central question of state sovereign immunity.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides that foreign nations are presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
The Court exercises its power to interpret the FSIA and determine the scope of exceptions to sovereign immunity, which is a function of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)We hold that the phrase 'rights in property taken in violation of international law,' as used in the FSIA's expropriation exception, refers to violations of the international law of expropriation and thereby incorporates the domestic takings rule.
-
Why Takings Clause is relevant to Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
Although the case does not directly involve the Takings Clause, it involves principles related to expropriation and property rights under international law, which are conceptually related.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The heirs contend that their claims fall within the FSIA's exception for 'property taken in violation of international law,' because the coerced sale of the Welfenschatz, their property, constituted an act of genocide.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp that support the summary and concepts above.
The phrase 'rights in property taken in violation of international law,' as used in the FSIA's expropriation exception, refers to violations of the international law of expropriation.
The heirs contend that their claims fall within the FSIA's exception for 'property taken in violation of international law.'
Germany's interpretation of the exception is also more consistent with the FSIA's express goal of codifying the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity.
