§1605(a)(3), given that the sovereign here was alleged to have engaged in a taking of its own nationals’ property; and whether courts can invoke the doctrine of international comity under the FSIA to abstain from exercising jurisdiction based on prudential considerations.

The items were purchased by a consortium of Jewish art dealers prior to the war, but they were then forced to sell the collection at a third of its value in 1935 to agents of Hermann Göring.

After the war, the Guelph Treasure pieces were moved to the Kunstgewerbemuseum Berlin (Museum of Decorative Arts) which is overseen by the Federal Republic of Germany under the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, where they have remained as part of the exhibits.

Germany moved to dismiss the case, claiming that the FSIA clause related to "rights in property" did not apply to the sale since there was no involvement of a foreign state at the time.

Roberts' opinion believed that they needed to consider the original sale of the art under act of expropriation rather than genocide in determining if FSIA applied.

"[3] Roberts wrote that by taking the heirs' position, they would undermine other provisions of FSIA that Congress had explicitly included, and open the United States itself to claims from other foreign courts.