Two new lawsuits say Los Angeles museums are displaying Nazi-era stolen art, igniting a fresh legal showdown over who truly owns priceless works.
Story Snapshot
- A California lawsuit seeks the return of Lucas Cranach the Elder’s Adam and Eve from the Norton Simon Museum.
- A federal case by the daughters of Dina Gottliebova Babbitt seeks Auschwitz watercolors she painted under coercion.
- Both suits rely on a 2024 California law reopening some Holocaust-era restitution claims.
- The Norton Simon Foundation cites prior federal wins and says it holds proper title to Adam and Eve.
New Filings Revive High-Stakes Restitution Fight in California Courts
On September 19, the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles and board chair Daniel Gryczman filed a California state-court suit seeking the return of Adam and Eve, a 16th-century diptych by Lucas Cranach the Elder, from the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena. The complaint ties the works to a 1940 seizure from Jewish art dealer Jacques Goudstikker’s Amsterdam gallery during the Nazi occupation, a claim presented in multiple reports as the core historical event at issue. The museum has not removed the paintings.
That same day, the daughters of Holocaust survivor and artist Dina Gottliebova Babbitt filed a federal lawsuit seeking watercolors their mother was forced to paint at Auschwitz for Josef Mengele. Their filing argues the works should be returned to the family’s custody. The Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial’s spokesperson counters that the watercolors must remain on site to document Nazi crimes and should not be described as “looted,” since Babbitt painted them under coercion as a prisoner.
Key Legal Lever: California’s 2024 Law Opens a New Path
Both actions lean on a 2024 California statute, often cited as Assembly Bill 2867, that re-opened a route for certain claims to recover cultural property taken or lost due to political persecution and created a limited refiling window. Reporting indicates lawmakers intended a narrow but real chance to revisit cases dismissed on procedural grounds, not to erase proof standards. Plaintiffs still must show credible provenance and a lawful basis for return under the revived pathway. Courts will weigh facts, records, and equities.
The Norton Simon dispute arrives with heavy history. Prior litigation over Adam and Eve led to a 2018 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that credited a chain of title tied to Dutch state actions and a Stroganoff lineage, resulting in a win for the museum on legal grounds then before the court. The museum’s public statements stress that “court after court,” including the United States Supreme Court’s posture on the case’s petitions, left its title intact.
What Each Side Says About Ownership and Custody
Plaintiffs argue Adam and Eve trace back to a 1940 Nazi seizure from Goudstikker, making present display a continued wrong and placing the works within the moral and legal framework of Holocaust restitution. Media reports describe the complaint as returning the issue to California state court under the new law’s policy choice to revisit some barriers that hindered earlier claims. The filings seek possession and a judicial ruling that honors original ownership and wartime loss.
The Norton Simon Art Foundation replies that its predecessor acquired Adam and Eve lawfully from a Stroganoff descendant in the early 1970s, and that federal courts already upheld its title after years of hard-fought litigation, including 2018 appellate relief. The museum says it will keep the works on public view and relies on its published provenance materials to explain the path into the collection. That position frames the new case as a repeat of settled issues now revived by statute.
Why This Matters Now: Justice, Records, and Rule of Law
These cases test how far new laws can reach back to correct old wrongs without undoing final judgments. They also test whether museums must open files wider and return objects where proof aligns with claims. The Washington Principles urge “just and fair solutions,” but courts still need solid records. The research package here does not include the new complaints or exhibits, so key evidentiary details—acquisition files, bills of sale, and transport records—remain offstage for now.
New Holocaust Restitution Laws Prompt Two Lawsuits Demanding Return of Nazi-Looted Art. https://t.co/zrxonzjmmB @BnaiBrith @raydowd
— Dina Gold (@dina_gold) September 19, 2026
For conservative readers, two points matter. First, the process must protect due process and property rights. If the record proves a Nazi-era theft that was never cured, restitution honors both justice and the rule of law. Second, sweeping statutes must not short-circuit settled title without clear, document-based evidence. California’s 2024 law opens the door, but the courts must insist on facts, not headlines, before they take property from a private foundation or a public memorial.
Sources:
ajc.com, latimes.com, laist.com, pasadenastarnews.com, casetext.com, cardozoaelj.com, nytimes.com, flyingpenguin.com
