Significant changes to the HEAR Act (2026)

The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act (HEAR Act) of 2016 has recently undergone significant amendments. This could have major implications for anyone wishing to export, trade or loan art dating from before 1946 to the United States. What do art dealers, collectors and museums need to bear in mind from now on?

In the United States, a number of significant amendments have recently been made to the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act of 2016, which governs the settlement of claims relating to art looted during the Nazi regime (1933–1945). After the Senate passed the bill at the end of 2025, the House of Representatives also approved it. On Monday 13 April 2026, President Donald J. Trump signed the new law into law.

The amendments modify the HEAR Act in three key respects:

1. The 2027 deadline for submitting claims for art looted during the Holocaust has been removed.
2. Formal defenses by current owners are no longer valid: the court must assess the merits of the claims.
3. It will be easier to bring a claim before a court in the United States.

This significantly alters the legal position of current owners, art dealers and museums.

HEAR Act (2016)

The aim of the original HEAR Act of 2016 was to prevent claims from becoming time-barred before families knew where the art stolen from them was located. Consequently, judges would have to assess restitution claims on their merits. That law established a uniform six-year limitation period, which only began to run once a person knew they had a claim to a work of art and knew where the work was located. This provision took precedence over all other limitation periods, both federal and those of individual states.

Although the HEAR Act was an important step, it proved insufficient in practice. The Act addressed only the issue of the limitation period. Other procedural obstacles remained. Judges therefore continued to dismiss claims on procedural grounds, without assessing their substance.

An example of this is the defense of laches, the principle that a claim may be dismissed if a claimant waits too long to bring proceedings and the opposing party is thereby disadvantaged, for example because evidence has disappeared. In addition, claims were also dismissed on the grounds of usucapion, the rule that long-term possession in good faith may ultimately lead to ownership. The legal doctrine of the act of state also played a role. On this basis, US judges are not permitted to rule on official acts of foreign states. Furthermore, foreign states invoked immunity.

Of all the cases since 2016 concerning art looted by the Nazis, only one case, Reif v Nagy, actually resulted in an order for the return of looted art. Most proceedings were dismissed before they were assessed on their merits.

Changes (2026)

The new law prohibits the invocation of formal defenses. In addition, the 2027 deadline for filing claims is abolished. However, the new limitation period remains in place, requiring claims to be filed within six years of the claimant discovering the work and their own claim to it.

Furthermore, US courts are granted broader powers to hear claims. They may now also hear claims against foreign states, regardless of the nationality of the person filing the claim. However, the artwork or property must have a connection to that state’s commercial activities in the United States. It will also be possible to serve court documents nationwide, so that defendants can be summoned in any district.

The law also prohibits judges from applying formal defenses raised by current owners when assessing the claims. This includes both defenses based on the passage of time, such as laches, and other defenses unrelated to the substantive assessment of the case, such as an objection to the court’s jurisdiction or to the legal force of laws, judgments and decisions of other countries. These changes apply to both current and future claims.

Are the changes tenable?

It is uncertain whether all these measures will stand up in practice. Some of the defenses that have been excluded stem from international law and treaties to which the United States is a party. It is therefore possible that federal judges will not apply certain parts of the new law for this reason, a possibility that the law itself already takes into account. Constitutional objections have already been raised. Furthermore, other restrictions will remain in place. Whether claims against foreign states will stand, for example, will continue to depend on whether the amended HEAR Act falls within the exceptions to the immunity of these states, as laid down in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The problem of evidence also remains significant. The passage of time makes it difficult to convincingly demonstrate coercion, ownership or provenance.

This was evident, for example, in Zuckerman v Metropolitan Museum of Art, where the claim in the first instance did not fail on the grounds of the statute of limitations, but on the lack of evidence of coercion in the sale of the work in Italy in 1938. In a similar case, Russell Advocaten was able to secure the restitution of a painting for our clients. Because the clients’ father had sold the painting in 1937 to finance their mother’s escape from Germany, the Dutch Restitution Committee ruled that the sale had been coerced. The new HEAR Act, however, does not alter the substantive burden of proof.

Consequences of the changes

The amendment to the HEAR Act has direct consequences for anyone who owns or trades in art with a potentially tainted provenance. As procedural defenses have been declared inapplicable, uncertainty for current owners is increasing. This affects art dealers, collectors and museums, amongst others. The import of art into the United States is also becoming more susceptible to claims. For anyone wishing to trade, import or loan art in the US, the new law is therefore more a source of additional risks than a relaxation of the rules. At the same time, the law may lead to more cases being settled out of court, as parties will wish to avoid lengthy proceedings.

What is certain is that the new law will bring about significant changes in how such claims are handled in the United States. For the families of victims of the Nazi regime, the law may offer new opportunities. For current owners of artworks and for the art market, the changes mainly entail greater risks and uncertainty. Anyone wishing to export art to the US would, in any case, be well advised to ensure that the provenance of artworks, particularly regarding the period 1933–1945, is well documented in advance.

Art Law Solicitor

Do you have questions about the implications of the amended HEAR Act for you as a collector or art dealer? Or other questions regarding looted art? Do you wish to file a claim, or do you require legal assistance because a claim has been filed against you? Russell Advocaten will be happy to assist you. You can also call on us for other matters concerning art and law. Please contact us: