(Image
by
Getty)
Today,
the
Supreme
Court
will
be
hearing
oral
argument
from
Cassirer
v.
Thyssen-Bornemisza
Collection
Foundation.
They
will
eventually
decide
if
a
federal
court
hearing
state
law
claims
brought
under
the
Foreign
Sovereign
Immunities
Act
has
to
apply
the
state’s
choice-of-law
rules
to
determine
what
substantive
law
governs
the
claims
at
issue,
or
if
it
has
to
use
federal
common
law
to
choose
the
source
of
the
substantive
law.
Yes,
that
is
an
Erie
question.
Maybe.
In
all
honesty,
the
fact
pattern
reads
like
a
less
murdery
and
more
property-ey
side
story
from
Inglourious
Basterds.
In
1900,
Paul
Cassirer
purchased
Pissarro’s
1897
painting Rue
Saint-Honoré,
Afternoon,
Rain
Effect.
Lilly
Cassirer
inherited
the
painting
in
1926.
In
1939,
the
painting
was
expropriated
by
the
Nazis:
Lilly
was
forced
to
give
it
up
in
exchange
for
permission
to
flee
Germany.Several
members
of
the
Cassirer
family,
including
Lilly
and
her
grandson
Claude,
ended
up
in
the
United
States.
Other
members
of
the
family,
including
Lilly’s
sister
Hannah,
were
murdered
in
the
concentration
camps.In
the
United
States,
Lilly
filed
a
claim
with
the
U.S
Court
of
Restitution,
which,
in
1954,
declared
her
the
rightful
owner
of
the
painting.
In
1958,
she
reached
a
settlement
with
the
German
Federal
Republic
for
compensation.
Germany
paid
her
approximately
$13,000;
the
painting
is
estimated
to
be
worth
about
$40
million
today.
Throughout
this
time,
all
parties
assumed
that
the
painting
was
lost
or
destroyed,
although
Claude
–
who
remembered
playing
in
the
room
in
which
it
hung
–
continued
to
look
for
it.Claude
Cassirer
never
stopped
looking
for
the
painting.
In
1999,
he
found
it
listed
in
a
Thyssen-Bornemisza
Collection
catalog.
He
promptly
filed
a
petition
with
Spain
and
the
museum
to
force
the
return
of
the
painting.
He
also
pursued
diplomatic
channels
to
persuade
Spain
to
return
it,
but
to
no
avail.
Who
this
painting
belongs
to
pivots
on
which
set
of
laws
are
applied.
If
the
federal
court
uses
California’s
laws,
the
painting
goes
to
the
family
as
it
was
stolen
by
the
Nazis
and
no
mere
changing
of
hands
is
enough
to
give
good
title
to
stolen
art.
However,
if
the
court
uses
Spanish
law,
it
goes
to
the
museum
through
adverse
possession.
After
reading
this,
I
know
that
Civ
Pro
professors
across
the
nation
are
biting
their
fingernails
waiting
for
the
verdict.
Why?
Because
they
know
that
this
case
will
be
all
the
justification
they
need
to
drop
version
6
of
their
casebook.
For
the
folks
who
actually
enjoy
close
readings
of
statutes,
the
opinion
will
likely
rest
on
nuanced
determinations
like,
is
jurisdiction
conferred
under
the
FSIA
more
analogous
to
federal
question
jurisdiction
than
to
diversity
jurisdiction,
making
Erie
and
its
progeny
irrelevant?
Should
the
Thyssen-Bornemisza
Collection
be
thought
of
as
an
instrumentality
of
a
foreign
state?
Once
these
questions
and
others
are
answered,
I
hope
that
someone
will
be
kind
enough
to
lend
me
their
Quimbee
login
so
I
can
read
the
case
summary.
That
is
how
I
learned
Erie,
after
all.
A
Quest
To
Reclaim
a
Pissarro
Masterpiece
Hinges
On
The
Erie
Doctrine
[SCOTUSblog]
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.