United States: Examining The Constitutionality Of The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act

Restituting Nazi-looted artwork is and has been a moral objective since the conclusion of World War II.

In an article recently published by the Pepperdine Law Review, William Charron, Co-Chair of Pryor Cashman's Art Law Group, examines the constitutionality of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act.

Charron writes, "the underlying purpose of the HEAR Act of 2016, which is to return Nazi-looted artwork to victims or their families, is undeniably laudable. It is equally clear that victims and their families can often face obstacles to gathering evidence from the war that would demonstrate Nazi theft in court. The HEAR Act strives to address these concerns by imposing a federal statute of limitations over all state law causes of action that would enable restitution of Nazi-stolen art."

Yet, in spite of the important purpose the Act aims to serve, Charron argues that courts must hold that the HEAR Act violates the 10^th Amendment and principles of federalism.

Click here to read the full article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.