15 Dec Federal Court Rules on Chabad’s Claim to Priceless Jewish Works
The D.C. District Court recently issued a very thoughtful opinion in the recent case of Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation. The case concerns claims by the Jewish organization Chabad that Russia had expropriated an invaluable collection of Jewish religious books and manuscripts maintained since 1775 from the first Rebbe, Rabbi Schneur Zalman, (pictured at left) to subsequent Rebbes of the Jewish movement of Chabad Chasidism. The property at issue is of critical importance to Chabad. Here is how the court described the property:
“At issue in this case are two distinct sets of property: the “Library” and the “Archive.” The Library, the origins of which date back to 1772, consists of more than 12,000 books and 381 manuscripts. It “was established, maintained and augmented by the first Five Chabad Rebbes….” The Archive is comprised of over 25,000 pages of Chabad Rebbes’ handwritten teachings, correspondence, and other records. The contents of the Archive passed down from Rebbe to Rebbe…. [T]he ksovim that are original manuscripts or manuscripts used by the Rebbe himself, assume a sanctity about them, that they are kind of the essential legacy. I would compare it to the crown jewels. It’s something concrete that is passed on in a symbolic way, and in a way incorporates in itself both the sanctity, the very presence, the very personality of the Rebbe himself.”
The case presents a number of interesting questions under the expropriation exception to the FSIA. The timing of the takings, the ownership interests of the property, and the commercial nexus to the United States are all discussed in great detail. I will not discuss all of these, but the court’s discussion of the timing of the taking gives you a flavor of the case.
“Rather than refute Chabad’s allegations, the defendants rely on the principle that international law does not govern disputes between a sovereign nation and its citizens. The parties agree that the Library first ‘fell into the hands of the Soviets during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.’ The Fifth Rebbe was a Russian (and then Soviet) citizen until his death and the Sixth Rebbe was a Soviet citizen until at least 1927, when he became a citizen of Latvia. Therefore, the defendants assert, the Soviet government’s expropriation of the Library cannot have violated international law and thus cannot form the basis of jurisdiction under the FSIA’s expropriation exception…. As for the Archive… Although Chabad asserts that “[t]he ‘taking’ of the Archive occurred in 2004 when defendants Russian Federation, Russian Ministry of Culture, and Russian Military Archive ceased all dialogue with Chabad concerning the Archive”, this Court bases its jurisdiction over Chabad’s claims to the Archive on Nazi Germany’s illegal appropriation of the Archive in Poland during World War II and its subsequent illegal appropriation by the Soviet Army in Poland in 1945…. Nazi Germany’s seizure of the Archive clearly violated international law as it was discriminatory, not for a public purpose, and did not result in payment of just compensation”
The act of state doctrine and forum non conveniens also are addressed in the case. The forum non conveniens discussion is fascinating. Here is an excerpt from the public interest analysis:
The general public interest in this case is evidenced by the demonstrated interest and involvement of the United States government in pushing for a resolution of the dispute surrounding the Collection. The national security adviser to a former Vice President of the United States stated that the return of the Collection was frequently brought up by the Vice President and President of the United States in meetings with their Russian counterparts, as well as by a ‘succession of United States Ambassadors.’… More recently, multiple letters addressed to Russian Presidents Yeltsin and Putin, signed by all one hundred United States Senators and by over three hundred members of the United States House of Representatives, as well as a letter from the State Department expressing its concern about the situation, comprise significant evidence that there is a strong public interest in the United States in the outcome of this litigation. Chabad points out the irony in the defendants’ claim that the Library is part of the Russian Federation’s cultural heritage, when the Russian Federation and its predecessor Soviet Union kept the Library in poor conditions for decades. In addition, the Soviet Union long denied that it even had possession of the Archive…. The public interests favor Chabad–while the defendants can claim a natural interest in having the case decided in a domestic court, there is a greater public interest in having this dispute decided in the United States, which is also home to many followers of Chabad.
In the end, the court ruled that it had jurisdiction over Chabad’s claims relating to the Archive but not the Library. It also found dismissal inappropriate under the act of state doctrine and under forum non conveniens. It’s a well-reasoned and interesting case that I commend to your reading.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.