By: Alyssa Blackstone

The Supreme Court revived a case on March 10, 2025, involving Nazi-looted artwork due to the recent enactment of a new California law. What are the implications of this law, and how much power does it indicate states have in repatriation of lost works of art? 

In September of 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom of California signed bill 2867,  allowing any California resident that has had art taken or stolen, including those taken under political persecution, to bring an action for recovery of the piece or damages. Newsom signed this law in response to a 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. concerning the painting “Rue Saint-Honore in the Afternoon. Effect of Rain” by the impressionist painter Camille Pissarro. This painting was owned by Lilly Cassirer Neubauer, a German citizen who was forced to sell the painting to the Nazis in 1939 to afford to flee to the UK. The 9^th circuit held the painting was lawfully owned by a Spanish museum, and does not need to be given to the American descendants of Neubauer. Newsom believed the bill would assist the families of Holocaust survivors in reclaiming goods that were stolen and looted from them by the Nazis. This bill helps families reclaim the art by giving plaintiffs standing to bring a case to court and potentially return ownership of the lost art to the rightful owners. 

There are many cases dealing with art restitution, especially involving art looted by, taken by, or sold to the Nazis during World War II. The Nazis looted an immense amount of art pieces, which many countries, including the United States (U.S.), have been trying to return to their original countries or descendants of the original owners. In fact, many of these art pieces are still missing today. Since the late 1990’s,  there has been a push to reclaim looted artwork for descendants of holocaust survivors in the U.S. shown by things such as the the Washington Principles (a conference where non-binding principles were given in regards to how to treat Nazi looted artwork).  However, since WWII and even into the 21^st century, as with the Pissarro piece, there are challenges getting art back to the original owner’s. 

Positively, the fruits of the California bill became apparent earlier this year. The Supreme Court revived the Pissarro case on March 10^th. They vacated the 9^th circuit judgement, and remanded the case to the 9^th circuit. This was done specifically in light of Bill 2867. This decision to remand bodes well for the family of Neubauer, as the new California law would make it much easier for them to claim ownership of the painting. We are still awaiting the 9^th Circuit’s decision on this remanded case. 

This law demonstrates how much power States can have in the restitution of art. As seen here, a California bill could grant the piece back to the family, when it has repeatedly been said by courts to be owned by the Spanish museum. Continually, any acts passed by Congress have also been helpful in returning looted artwork outside of California.