Austria, the Albertina Museum and the Leopold Museum Foundation have renewed their challenge to the constitutionality of the amended Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act. Their response, filed in New York on October 30, answers legal arguments from two US senators and the Department of Justice in a dispute over twelve Egon Schiele works claimed by Fritz Grünbaum’s heirs.
A challenge tied to the Grünbaum claim
The Republic of Austria and the two Vienna museums are defendants in a suit brought by Timothy Reif, a descendant of Grünbaum, a Jewish cabaret performer and art collector killed in a death camp in 1941. Reif seeks the return of works he alleges were looted by the Nazis when they seized Grünbaum’s collection.
The defendants dispute that account. They argue that the works belong to a group exported from Austria by Grünbaum’s sister-in-law in the 1930s and later sold to a Swiss dealer in the 1950s. Provenance and ownership therefore remain contested alongside the constitutional questions.
What the amended law changes
Congress first enacted the HEAR Act in 2016. It was due to expire in 2026, but amendments signed by President Donald Trump in 2025 extended it indefinitely and changed rules for claims involving Nazi-looted art. The changes were intended to address cases that had failed on technical grounds, including disputes over differing state statutes of limitation.
The defendants argue that the law relies on state law to provide the substantive basis for restitution while restricting defenses that courts might otherwise apply. In their view, Congress has not created a federal restitution law like federal copyright law; instead, it has altered how courts handle cases brought under state law.
Arguments over courts’ authority
The filing renews objections under the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not granted to the federal government to the states, and Article III, which establishes the federal judiciary and its role in deciding cases. Austria and the museums contend that Congress has crossed both boundaries by limiting the courts’ ability to decide disputes under applicable law.
A central example is laches, a defense that can bar an otherwise valid claim when a claimant has delayed unreasonably and that delay has unfairly harmed the opposing party. The defendants say the 2025 amendments prevent courts from assessing whether delay caused the loss of important evidence or prejudiced current owners. They argue that removing this inquiry affects how judges can determine the facts of a case.
Senators’ briefs and the case ahead
The response addresses arguments submitted by the Justice Department and Senators Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, and John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas. Their briefs cited legal precedent in support of the amended law’s constitutionality. The defendants say Congress exceeded its authority, while acknowledging in the filing that the senators and the government are seeking to address the harms of the Holocaust.
The federal court has not ruled on the HEAR Act’s constitutionality, its jurisdiction over the dispute or title to the Schiele works. The parties continue to contest parts of the works’ provenance. The defendants have also argued that Reif v. Republic of Austria could be resolved without a constitutional ruling; whether the court will take up that question remains pending.
Sources
- artincontext.org — “Austria Renews HEAR Act Challenge Over Schiele Works”
- artdependence.com — “Austria, Leopold Museum and Albertina Challenge HEAR”
- art.claimscon.org — “Holocaust-Era Looted”