Whether Hungary and MAV violated the international law of expropriation by seizing stateless persons' property

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW During World War II, the Republic of Hungary implemented ethnic cleansing, forcibly removing all Jews from their homes, imprisoning them in ghettoes, and then deporting most of them out of the country to be murdered in Nazi death camps, meanwhile seizing all of their belongings without compensation. Petitioners are Holocaust survivors seeking damages from Hungary and its national railway (“MAV”) for the property they expropriated while committing these barbarous crimes. Petitioners have sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3), which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.” Petitioners assert that Hungary denationalized them, making them stateless persons regarded as aliens not subject to the domestic takings exception to the international law of expropriation under § 1605(a)(3). See Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. 169 (2021) (“Philipp”). They also assert that, by violating the 1920 Treaty of Trianon’s guaranties of equal treatment of minorities, respondents’ expropriation was a “violation of international law” not subject to the domestic takings exception. The case presents these questions: 1. Did Hungary and MAV violate the international law of expropriation by their seizure of stateless persons’ property? 2. Was Hungary’s violation of the Treaty of Trianon by expropriation of Jews’ property a taking in violation of international law under § 1605(a)(3)?