To clarify the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, to appropriately limit the application of defenses based on the passage of time and other non-merits defenses to claims under that Act.

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] [H.R. 4235 Introduced in House (IH)] <DOC> 119th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 4235 To clarify the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, to appropriately limit the application of defenses based on the passage of time and other non-merits defenses to claims under that Act. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 27, 2025 Ms. Lee of Florida (for herself, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Raskin, Ms. Goodlander, and Mr. Fitzgerald) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________ A BILL To clarify the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, to appropriately limit the application of defenses based on the passage of time and other non-merits defenses to claims under that Act. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT OF 2016 IMPROVEMENTS. (a) In General.--The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 1621 note) is amended-- (1) in section 2-- (A) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (10); (B) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following: ``(8) The intent of this Act is to permit claims to recover Nazi-looted art to be brought, notwithstanding the passage of time since World War II. Some courts have frustrated the intent of this Act by dismissing recovery lawsuits in reliance on defenses based on the passage of time, such as laches (for example, Zuckerman v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 928 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2019)) or adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, or usucapion (for example, Cassirer v. Thyssen- Bornemisza Foundation, 89 F.4th 1226 (9th Cir. 2024)) or on other non-merits discretionary defenses, such as the act of state doctrine (for example, Von Saher v Norton Si