ABSTRACT
The D.C. Circuit Court’s recent opinion in Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation allowed jurisdiction under the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) over Russia and its agencies by employing an expansive interpretation of a “taking in violation of international law.”1 The court held that a governmental “frustration” of an owner’s effort to physically recover property, when recovery had been secured through a final judicial judgment, may effect a “retaking” sufficient for jurisdiction.2 This template for a “retaking” or “second taking” of property has potentially broad consequences for cultural property displaced during and after World War II, particularly in Russia. It also severely limits one of the most effective defenses customarily employed by nations drawn into litigation, the Act of State Doctrine.
