The Holocaust Expropriated Art Repatriation (HEAR) Act of 2025 is an expected continuation of original legislation from 2016, which allowed family members of Holocaust victims to pursue legal action related to works of art believed to be lost, stolen, looted, or sold under duress during World War II at the hands of the Nazi regime. The key takeaway: Congress is expanding the law’s reach and closing the procedural gaps that have prevented legitimate claims from moving forward in U.S. courts. Since its enactment, the HEAR Act has opened a crucial avenue for families to pursue claims that would otherwise be time-barred. However, after reviewing the Act’s successes and shortfalls over the past nine years, Congress does not believe the Act has fulfilled its true potential or aligns with its original legislative intent.
To that end, Congress drafted Bill S.1884, which extends the life of the Act and adds several operational changes. Several core requirements for bringing a claim remain the same. However, proposed changes are on the horizon to more expansively adjudicate claims brought under the HEAR Act.
What Requirements Stay the Same Under the HEAR Act of 2025?
The core eligibility rules are unchanged. Claims under the HEAR Act must still pertain to works of art or property lost, stolen, looted, or sold under duress during the timeframe of January 1, 1933, through December 31, 1945 (the “covered period”). Any claimant must still bring their claim within six years of their “actual discovery” of either:
- The identity and location of a work of art or other property, or
- The claimant’s ownership right in that artwork or property.
What Is Changing Under the HEAR Act of 2025?
Several significant changes are proposed, all aimed at giving claimants a stronger path forward in court.
Removal of the Sunset Provision
The current filing deadline goes away. The 2016 version of the HEAR Act included a “sunset clause” requiring all claims to be filed by December 31, 2026. If signed into law, the HEAR Act of 2025 eliminates that deadline entirely. Claimants would be able to bring claims indefinitely, as long as they are actually discovered within the six-year timeframe and relate to the covered period.
“Non-Merits” Defenses Are Precluded
Defendants lose access to several procedural defenses. The HEAR Act of 2025 precludes defenses based on the passage of time, such as laches (a claimant’s unreasonable delay in bringing a case), as well as adverse possession, acquisitive possession, and usucapion. These are doctrines that can otherwise allow a party who has continuously possessed another’s property, without the true owner’s permission, to claim title over time.
Also precluded are discretionary defenses, including:
- Act of state doctrine — prevents U.S. courts from questioning official acts committed by a foreign sovereign government within its own territory
- Forum non conveniens — a tactic used to transfer a case to a more convenient court
- International comity — the voluntary, non-binding deference one nation accords to the governmental acts of another
- Prudential exhaustion — requires parties to exhaust local or administrative remedies before filing in federal court
If enacted, all of the above defenses become unavailable in HEAR Act cases, so that courts can reach and decide those cases on the merits.
Nationwide Service of Process
Jurisdiction becomes significantly broader. If enacted, the HEAR Act of 2025 will permit service of process throughout the United States, allowing courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants in any judicial district where they may be “found, reside, have an agent or transact business.”
Tie-In to Federal Law Excepting Foreign Sovereign Immunity
The HEAR Act of 2025 connects directly to existing federal law that limits when foreign states are immune from U.S. jurisdiction. One recognized exception covers claims “in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue” and where that property is present in the United States in connection with commercial activity carried on by the foreign state 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(3). The HEAR Act of 2025 expressly states that any claim under the Act constitutes such an action “in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue” and that the claim is “without regard to the nationality or citizenship of the alleged victim.”
The Act also rejects the holding in F.R.G. v. Phillip, which had applied the “domestic takings” rule, a rule that treats a foreign state’s taking of its own nationals’ property as a matter not appropriate for U.S. judicial consideration F.R.G. v. Philip, 592 U.S. 169 (2021). The HEAR Act of 2025 explicitly pushes back on that limitation, adding another layer of protection for claimants.
What Should Families With Potential HEAR Act Claims Do Now?
The HEAR Act of 2025 has passed the House and Senate and awaits the President’s signature. Many protective enhancements await potential claimants who wish to rely on the law in federal court. Once enacted, only time will tell whether the amendments achieve Congress’s initial purpose, or if further changes are needed to give claims a true “fighting chance” in court. Future litigation under the HEAR Act will be the real litmus test for the amendments and their efficacy.