The HEAR Act of 2025 Eliminates Laches and Other Non‑Merits Defenses in Holocaust Art Cases

The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 (the HEAR Act of 2025), signed into law on April 13, 2026, clarifies the 2016 HEAR Act by prohibiting defenses like laches, act of state, and forum non conveniens in Nazi-era restitution cases. This aims to ensure claims are resolved on their merits, not dismissed on technical grounds. While the law doesn’t guarantee victory for claimants, it levels the playing field and encourages out-of-court resolutions for meritorious cases.

Introduction

The HEAR Act of 2025 changes U.S. litigation over Nazi-confiscated art by ensuring more restitution claims are decided on their merits rather than dismissed on procedural grounds.

Key Insights and Themes

The 2016 HEAR Act and Its Limitations

• Original purpose: The HEAR framework aims to have Nazi-era art claims resolved in a “just and fair manner.”
• Statute of limitations:
  • Six years: The 2016 HEAR Act imposed a nationwide six-year statute of limitations for Nazi-confiscated art claims.
  • Trigger standard: The six-year limitations period begins when a claimant gains “actual knowledge” of the artwork’s identity and location and of their possessory interest.
• Problems:
  • Problem identified: Congress concluded some courts had “frustrated the intent” of the 2016 HEAR Act by dismissing claims on technical, non-merits grounds.
  • Laches:
    • Laches defense: Museums have defeated Holocaust-era claims using laches by arguing plaintiffs delayed unreasonably and caused prejudice to defendants.
    • Illustrative cases Courts affirmed dismissals on laches grounds in Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art and Bennigson v. Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation.
  • Other non-merits bars: Courts have also dismissed restitution cases using doctrines such as act of state, forum non conveniens, international comity, and acquisitive prescription.
    • Act of state example: The Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum case was affirmed on act-of-state grounds.
    • Acquisitive prescription example: Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation turned on applying Spain’s rule that possession can ripen into title after specified periods.

The HEAR Act of 2025: Congress Rejects Non‑Merits Dismissals

The HEAR Act of 2025 clarifies the 2016 law by expressly precluding time-based defenses like laches and other non-merits defenses.

• Enactment: President Trump signed the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 into law on April 13, 2024.
• Unanimous passage: Congress passed the HEAR Act of 2025 unanimously in both houses.
• Core effect: The new law is intended to permit Nazi-confiscated art claims to be resolved “on the merits.”
• No guaranteed wins: The HEAR Act of 2025 does not ensure claimants prevail; it mainly prevents early dismissals unrelated to the facts.
• Museum impact: The law is not expected to “empty” museums because these cases remain legally and factually difficult and require extensive research.
• Settlement incentives: By limiting technical defenses, the law may encourage more out-of-court resolutions for meritorious claims.
• Collector takeaway: Collectors are urged to ensure clear title and address problematic provenance, often with art-law and provenance-research support.

Conclusion

The HEAR Act of 2025 reorients Holocaust‑era restitution litigation toward factual ownership questions, limiting courts’ ability to dispose of claims on procedural or discretionary grounds alone.

Further Reading

Kate W. Aufses & Yaél M. Weitz, New Federal Law Helps Victims of Nazi-Confiscated Art, Wealth Management, April 16, 2026.