On March 16, 2026, Congress passed an updated version of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act (“HEAR Act”), which was signed into law by the President on April 13, 2026. The purpose of the HEAR Act is to aid in the recovery of artwork that was stolen or lost during the Nazi era. The first iteration of the HEAR Act was updated to broaden the law’s reach and eliminate some of procedural tactics and technical defenses that have prevented claims from moving forward. 

THE 2016 HEAR ACT

The original version of the HEAR Act, enacted in 2016, was designed to address situations in which museums, governments, and institutions block art restitution claims by invoking the statute of limitations. The original version of the HEAR Act created a six-year statute of limitations that runs from the date the claimant (the original owner of an artwork or his or her heirs) had actual knowledge of his or her claim to the artwork, as well as its current location. However, the original version of the HEAR Act was silent on the application of defenses, including laches. Laches is an equitable defense that bars a claimant from pursuing lawsuits if they unreasonably delayed asserting their rights, causing unfair prejudice or disadvantage to the defendant. It is rooted in the principle that "equity aids the vigilant, not the negligent."

Since 2016, courts have dismissed a number of Nazi-looted art cases based on laches. After the passage of the original HEAR Act, fewer than two dozen lawsuits have been filed to recover Holocaust era losses. And of those cases, only one, Reif v. Nagy,  175 A.D.3d 107, 106 N.Y.S.3d 5 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019), resulted in a court adjudication ordering the return of artwork to claimants. With these paltry figures in mind, Congress believes the HEAR Act has not fulfilled its true potential and does not fulfill its original legislative intent. 

THE UPDATED HEAR ACT

The core of the HEAR Act remains unchanged. The Act applies to artworks or property lost, misappropriated, or sold under duress between January 1, 1933 and December 31, 1945.   Claimants must file their claims within six years of the “actual discovery” of either: (1) the location of the property; or (2) the claimant’s ownership right in that property. 

The updated HEAR Act eliminates the previous filing deadline of December 31, 2026. Rather, claimants can indefinitely file complaints, if they fall within six years of actual discovery.

In addition, the updated HEAR Act eliminates technical defenses that have been used to defeat claims. Specifically, the updated version of the HEAR Act not only continues the original version of the statute, which would have expired at the end of 2026, but it also expressly prohibits defenses such as laches. The HEAR Act also limits defenses based on discretionary considerations for dismissal, including international comity (deference to the laws of other sovereigns) and forum non conveniens (transferring a case to a more convenient court).  

RESPONSES TO THE UPDATED ACT

There has been criticism lodged against the updated version of the HEAR Act. For example, in a piece written for the Harvard Art Law Review, art attorney William L. Charron argues that laches is not a purely “technical defense,” and that eliminating it violates Article III of the U.S. Constitution and the Separation of Powers doctrine because that would unlawfully purport to eliminate the federal courts’ power to exercise their vested equitable jurisdiction fully. Charron further argues that this would be an interference for courts to exercise their vested jurisdictional right to “decide” such cases for themselves.

Similarly, the Association of Art Museum Directors noted that the removal of traditional defenses “would set a dangerous precedent by overturning fundamental principles of our legal system,” threaten relations with foreign countries, undermine reasonable and good-faith defenses, and could lead to more litigation.  

On the other hand, some attorneys assert that technical defenses have gotten in the way of meritorious claims. With so few survivors who escaped Nazi persecution, and with a small group of heirs able to prove ownership, advocates of the updated HEAR Act urge courts to remove hurdles blocking the adjudication of these important litigations. Attorney Nicholas O’Donnell welcomed the updated law, asserting that foreign sovereigns “will now be subject to lawsuits and the jurisdiction of the US courts for Nazi-era art claims in the manner that [C]ongress always intended.”  

THE ART MARKET 

The HEAR Act of 2025 will change the landscape for Nazi-looted cases by allowing a greater number of Holocaust era cases to move forward. For collectors, it is essential to complete heightened due diligence for artworks that have changed hands in Europe between 1933 and 1945. And for owners holding artworks with any gaps in provenance during the Nazi-era, consultation with legal counsel can be very valuable. 

TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN’S ART LAW GROUP

Tarter Krinsky & Drogin’s Art Law Group has broad expertise with recovering wrongfully taken art. Our team includes attorneys with experience in Nazi-era claims, ownership disputes, communist-era property takings, cultural heritage repatriation, and general art law matters.