Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation 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 Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation.
The Supreme Court addressed the choice-of-law rule applicable in Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) cases involving non-federal claims. The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a painting confiscated by the Nazis and later acquired by a Spanish foundation. The Court decided that the choice-of-law rule should be the same as in a similar suit against a private party.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation.
The Court held that in an FSIA suit raising non-federal claims, the choice-of-law rule should be the same as in a similar suit against a private party.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
The case involves the allocation of authority between state and federal governments in determining the choice-of-law rule applicable in FSIA suits.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: In an FSIA suit raising non-federal claims against a foreign state or instrumentality, a court should determine the substantive law by using the same choice-of-law rule applicable in a similar suit against a private party.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
The Court exercised its power to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals regarding the choice-of-law rule in FSIA cases.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)This Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals as to what choice-of-law rule a court should apply in an FSIA case raising non-federal claims.
-
Why Preemption is relevant to Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
The decision addresses whether federal common law should displace state law in FSIA cases, implicating preemption principles.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Scant justification exists for federal common lawmaking in this context. Judicial creation of federal common law to displace state-created rules must be 'necessary to protect uniquely federal interests.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation that support the summary and concepts above.
The FSIA provides a baseline principle of foreign sovereign immunity from civil actions unless a statutory exception applies.
Section 1606 dictates the selection of a choice-of-law rule: It must mirror the rule that would apply in a similar suit between private parties.
Even absent the clarity of Section 1606, the Court would likely reach the same result.
