Eighty years after Nazi Germany systematically stripped Jewish families of their cultural inheritance, two lawsuits filed in California courts are asking a question that time has not resolved: who truly holds the right to art taken by force? Armed with newly enacted state and federal protections, Jewish heirs are challenging prominent museums in Los Angeles and beyond, placing the weight of historical injustice against decades of institutional ownership — and forcing a reckoning that may redefine how the world's museums account for what they hold.
Jewish heirs sue LA museums for Nazi-looted masterpieces under new state law
These masterpieces were stolen to enrich the Nazi party and fund the death machine
So these are the first lawsuits filed under the new California law. What changed that made these cases possible now?
The California law and federal legislation shifted the legal ground. Before, courts had ruled that state-owned foreign museums couldn't be sued in U.S. courts—there was sovereign immunity. The new laws say that California residents and their heirs can bring claims under state law, which sidesteps some of those federal barriers.
But the Norton Simon Museum is saying a federal court already ruled in 2018 that they have proper title. So the new law might not actually change the outcome in that case.
That's true. The museum is relying on that 2018 ruling and the Supreme Court's 2019 decision not to hear an appeal. But the federation is arguing that the new law creates a different legal pathway, one that wasn't available before.
What about the Auschwitz case? That seems like a completely different argument.
It is. The Auschwitz Memorial is saying these aren't looted art at all—they're historical documents of Nazi crimes. Babbitt painted them under duress as a prisoner, so she never owned them. The Memorial argues they have to stay there to document what happened.
But the daughters are her heirs. Doesn't that matter legally? And if Babbitt was forced to create them, doesn't that make them stolen in a different sense?
Those are the exact tensions the lawsuit will have to work through. The Memorial's position is that preserving the historical record outweighs the family's claim.
How much money are we talking about here?
The lawsuits don't specify. We don't know the appraised value of either the Cranach paintings or the watercolors.
But the Jewish Federation said they'd use most of the proceeds to help the 2,500 Holocaust survivors living in Los Angeles. That's the human dimension—this isn't just about art, it's about supporting elderly survivors.
Do the museums have a point about preservation and public access?
They're making that argument. Norton Simon says the paintings have been on public view for fifty years and they've been restored and preserved. That's a real institutional contribution.
But it's also convenient. The museum benefits from having masterpieces on the walls. That doesn't mean the original owners' heirs don't have a claim.
What happens if the federation wins?
Then the paintings go back to the heirs, who would likely sell them and distribute the proceeds to survivors. The Cranach paintings would probably leave the museum.
And if they lose, the law didn't actually change anything—the 2018 ruling stands, and museums keep what they have.
Il Polso
- Two lawsuits filed simultaneously in California target Nazi-looted masterpieces held by the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena and the Auschwitz Memorial in Poland, marking the first legal challenges under newly strengthened Holocaust restitution laws.
- The cases carry distinct but equally haunting urgency: one involves Renaissance paintings seized by Hermann Göring from a Dutch Jewish art dealer, the other demands the return of watercolors a Holocaust prisoner was forced to paint for Josef Mengele under threat of death.
- Museums are pushing back hard — Norton Simon cites a 2018 federal court ruling affirming its title, while the Auschwitz Memorial argues the watercolors are irreplaceable historical documents of Nazi crimes, not looted property in the traditional sense.
- California's AB 2867, signed in 2024, and parallel federal legislation were designed precisely to overcome the kind of legal precedents museums are now invoking, setting up a direct collision between new law and entrenched institutional resistance.
- If the heirs prevail, proceeds from recovered art would flow to the roughly 2,500 elderly Holocaust survivors still living in Los Angeles — transforming a legal battle over paintings into a lifeline for those who survived the very persecution that stole them.
Eighty years after Nazi Germany systematically stripped Jewish families of their cultural inheritance, two lawsuits filed in California courts are asking a question that time has not resolved: who truly holds the right to art taken by force? Armed with newly enacted state and federal protections, Jewish heirs are challenging prominent museums in Los Angeles and beyond, placing the weight of historical injustice against decades of institutional ownership — and forcing a reckoning that may redefine how the world's museums account for what they hold.
Between 1933 and 1945, Nazi Germany looted more than 600,000 works of art from Jewish families and institutions across Europe. Eighty years later, two of those works remain in prominent museums near Los Angeles — and this month, Jewish heirs filed lawsuits to bring them home.
The first case centers on a pair of life-size oil paintings by Lucas Cranach the Elder, depicting Adam and Eve, now displayed at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena. The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles filed suit on behalf of Marei von Saher, sole heir to Dutch art dealer Jacques Goudstikker, whose collection was seized by Hermann Göring during the war. The paintings passed through multiple hands before landing at the museum's predecessor institution in the 1960s. Norton Simon disputes the claim, pointing to a 2018 federal ruling affirming its title and offering a different account of the works' origins.
The second lawsuit is more haunting. Dinah Gottliebova Babbitt, a Holocaust survivor who later became an animator in California, was forced while imprisoned at Auschwitz to paint watercolors of fellow prisoners for Josef Mengele's medical experiments. Her daughters are now suing the Auschwitz Memorial, which holds those paintings, for their return. The memorial's spokesperson countered that the works are irreplaceable historical documents of Nazi atrocities — not looted art in any conventional sense.
Both suits are the first filed under California's AB 2867, signed by Governor Newsom in 2024, and complementary federal legislation. The laws were written in direct response to a prior federal ruling that allowed a state-owned Spanish museum to retain a Pissarro painting stolen from a Jewish family in 1939. Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, who authored the California bill, said it was time for museums to reckon with which side of history they want to stand on.
Rabbi Noah Farkas of the Jewish Federation framed the effort as an act of communal responsibility. Most proceeds from any recovered art, he said, would support the approximately 2,500 elderly Holocaust survivors still living in the Los Angeles area — allowing them to live out their final years in dignity. What the courts decide will likely set the terms for how museums across the country respond to the unfinished business of the Holocaust.
Between 1933 and 1945, Nazi Germany stole more than 600,000 works of art from across Europe—paintings, sculptures, drawings, everything. Most were taken from Jewish families, collectors, and institutions. Eighty years later, many of those masterpieces still hang in museums around the world, including two prominent institutions in and near Los Angeles. This month, Jewish heirs and their representatives filed lawsuits to get them back, armed with new legal tools that didn't exist before.
The first lawsuit targets two life-size oil paintings by Lucas Cranach the Elder, created in 1530. They depict Adam and Eve, rendered with the precise detail and pale northern light that made Cranach famous. The paintings now belong to the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena. The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles and its board chair Daniel Gryczman. The federation is acting on behalf of Marei von Saher, the sole heir to a Dutch art dealer named Jacques Goudstikker, whose collection was seized by Hermann Göring, Adolf Hitler's second-in-command. The paintings changed hands multiple times after the war before being sold to the Pasadena Museum of Modern Art in the 1960s—the institution that later became the Norton Simon Museum.
The second lawsuit is stranger and more haunting. It was filed in federal court the same day by the daughters of Dinah Gottliebova Babbitt, a Holocaust survivor who became an animator in California. While imprisoned in Auschwitz, Babbitt was forced by Josef Mengele—the Nazi physician known as the "Angel of Death"—to paint watercolors of fellow prisoners. These paintings documented Mengele's experiments on Roma and Sinti victims. The lawsuit demands their return from the Auschwitz Memorial, where they are currently held.
Both lawsuits are the first to be filed under newly strengthened legal protections. In September 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2867, written by Democratic Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel. The law requires that California courts apply state law in cases brought by California residents or their heirs seeking to recover art seized during the Holocaust or other acts of persecution. Congress passed complementary federal legislation around the same time. These laws exist because a federal court had previously ruled that a state-owned Spanish museum could keep a Camille Pissarro painting that the Nazis had stolen from the Cassirer family in 1939. Gabriel, who co-chairs the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, introduced the bill in response to that decision. He said it was time for museums to "do some deep introspection on whether they want to be on the right side of history."
The museums are not yielding. Norton Simon Museum issued a statement asserting that a federal court unanimously determined in 2018 that the museum held proper title to the Cranach paintings. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in 2019. The museum's account of the paintings' provenance differs from the heirs' version: the museum says the works originally belonged to the Stroganoff family and were sold by the Soviet Union in 1931 at an illicit auction in Berlin, where Goudstikker purchased them. The museum has restored and preserved the pieces and kept them on public view for nearly fifty years.
The Auschwitz Memorial took a different approach. Pawel Sawicki, a spokesperson, said the watercolors should not be classified as "Nazi-looted art" because Babbitt painted them as a prisoner without ownership. He acknowledged the family's sentiments but argued that the paintings are irreplaceable historical documents of Mengele's crimes. "The loss of even the smallest part of the documentation is an irreparable loss and blemish on the memory of the victims of Auschwitz," he said.
Rabbi Noah Farkas, president and CEO of the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, framed the effort differently. He said the federation plans to use most of the net proceeds from any recovered art to help the approximately 2,500 Holocaust survivors still living in the Los Angeles area. "These are incredibly beautiful European masterpieces stolen from a Jewish family to enrich the Nazi party and fund the war and death machine," Farkas said. "It's our honor to take on this role on behalf of the community and use most of the proceeds to help these elderly survivors live out the last years of their lives in dignity, comfort and peace."
Marei von Saher, the heir whose family's collection is at stake, issued a statement saying she was grateful to the Jewish organization for taking up her cause. "This effort represents a meaningful step toward justice for Holocaust survivors and victims of Nazi era atrocities," she said. The lawsuits do not specify the monetary value of the paintings. What happens next will likely shape how museums across the country handle claims to Nazi-looted art—and whether the new California and federal laws prove strong enough to overcome decades of legal precedent and institutional resistance.
Citazioni salienti
These are incredibly beautiful European masterpieces stolen from a Jewish family to enrich the Nazi party and fund the war and death machine against the people. It's our honor to take on this role on behalf of the community and use most of the proceeds to help these elderly survivors live out the last years of their lives in dignity, comfort and peace.— Rabbi Noah Farkas, president and CEO of the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles
The loss of even the smallest part of the documentation is an irreparable loss and blemish on the memory of the victims of Auschwitz.— Pawel Sawicki, spokesperson for the Auschwitz Memorial