For years, Chabad-Lubavitch, a Hasidic Jewish organization based in New York, has sought the return of two sets of religious books and manuscripts related to the group’s heritage, collectively known as known as the Schneerson Collection.  One group of records, comprising about 12,000 religious texts, was seized around the time of the Russian Revolution.  The other set, made up of about 25,000 pages of handwritten manuscripts by the group’s past religious leaders, was stolen by Nazi German forces during World War II, and then seized by the Red Army and transported to the Soviet Union, where they currently are housed primarily in the Russian State Military Archive and the Russian State Library.

In 2004, Chabad sued several Russian governmental entities in United States federal court, pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).  The FSIA generally bars U.S. courts from asserting jurisdiction over foreign states, except in very limited circumstances—but Chabad’s suit went forward under one of these exceptions, providing that foreign states are not immune from U.S. court jurisdiction “in any case in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.”  In 2009, after several years of legal wrangling, the Russian defendants withdrew from all further participation in the lawsuit, asserting that a U.S. federal court had no authority to adjudicate the Russian government’s rights regarding the collections.  In July 2010, Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered a default judgment in favor of Chabad, and ordered the Russian defendants to surrender the records to either the American Embassy in Moscow or to Chabad.

Russia has, to date, refused to comply with the court’s order and return the Schneerson Collection.  In February 2011, Russia also took the dramatic step of suspending all exchanges of Russian art and cultural artifacts with American institutions, until this case is resolved.  The cited rationale was that Russia feared its own art and artifacts would be vulnerable to seizure, attachment, or other efforts to hold Russian art “hostage” in America as leverage in seeking to enforce the Chabad-Lubavitch judgment.  Due to the ban, Russian state-run museums (including such powerhouses as the Hermitage in St. Petersburg and the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow), cannot loan any of their holdings to American museums, universities, or exhibitions.

Last week, the District Court issued civil contempt sanctions against the Russian defendants, totaling $50,000 per day, until they comply with the court’s order to return the collections.  The Russian government has already lashed out at what it calls an “absolutely unlawful and provocative” action; it called the Chabad collections a “national treasure of the Russian people” and promised “a tough response” to any attempt to seize any Russian state property in connection with the case.

This case is a stark illustration of the difficulties involved in international disputes regarding the ownership of art and antiquities, particularly when the disputed works are not in the hands of a private citizen, but in the hands of a foreign government.  Moreover, the case’s impact is reverberating throughout the U.S. art community.  Despite attempts (by plaintiffs, the court, and the administration) to reassure the Russian government of legal protections that will prevent the attachment of Russian art and artifacts in the United States, the Russian government has been unwilling to retract its ban on artistic and cultural exchanges between the two nations.

As this dispute continues to unfold, it will be watched closely by legal scholars for its implications regarding the power of U.S. courts over foreign states; by religious leaders interested in the fate of priceless manuscripts; by diplomats and government officials concerned about strained ties between two world superpowers; and by the art community, which is suffering under a ban that forbids the sharing of artworks and antiquities—an exchange that Judge Lamberth himself has described as “crucial to the promotion of cross-cultural understanding in a global world.”