Two new lawsuits filed in California are putting long-running disputes over Holocaust-era artworks back in the spotlight. One centers on Renaissance masterpieces displayed at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena. The other concerns seven watercolors created inside Auschwitz by Jewish artist Dinah Gottliebova Babbitt.
Both cases were filed on September 14, 2026, after significant changes to California and federal law opened new legal avenues for claims involving property lost during Nazi persecution. Yet neither dispute is straightforward. The artworks have complicated histories, previous court rulings, competing ownership claims and, in the Auschwitz case, an argument that removing the works could damage an important historical record.
Why the new Nazi-looted art lawsuits matter
The two lawsuits involve very different artworks, but they share a major legal question: can claims that previously encountered substantial legal barriers now move forward under California and federal protections?
The first case was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles and its board chair, Daniel Gryczman. They are seeking the return of Lucas Cranach the Elder’s 16th-century paintings “Adam” and “Eve” from the Norton Simon Museum.
The second case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Michele Babbitt Kane and Karin Wendy Babbitt, daughters of Holocaust survivor and artist Dinah Gottliebova Babbitt.
Federal court records identify the case as Kane et al. v. Państwowe Muzeum Auschwitz-Birkenau w Oświęcimiu, case number 2:2026cv10429. It was filed September 14, 2026, and includes seven watercolor works as exhibits.
The lawsuits follow California’s 2024 Assembly Bill 2867 and the federal Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025, signed by President Donald Trump on April 13, 2026.
Neither law automatically decides who owns a disputed artwork. Instead, the measures affect the legal framework under which qualifying claims can be brought and considered.
| Date | Development | Key details |
| May 1931 | Cranach paintings sold at Berlin auction | Jacques Goudstikker acquired “Adam” and “Eve” |
| 1940 | Paintings appropriated from Goudstikker | Works passed through Alois Miedl before reaching Hermann Göring |
| 1966 | Cranach paintings transferred to George Stroganoff Scherbatoff | They were later sold through Spencer A. Samuels & Co. |
| 1971 | Norton Simon Foundation acquired “Adam” | “Eve” was acquired in the same period |
| September 16, 2024 | California AB 2867 signed | The law strengthened routes for recovery of qualifying Holocaust-era property |
| April 13, 2026 | HEAR Act amendment signed | The federal law removed the previous sunset and changed certain defenses |
| September 14, 2026 | Two new lawsuits filed | The Cranach and Babbitt disputes entered new legal proceedings |
More Long-Buried History Coming to Light
A backyard terrace project in Denmark accidentally uncovered the country’s largest known collection of Viking-era silver, buried for centuries: our story covers Denmark’s Biggest Viking Silver Hoard Was Hidden Under a Backyard — And a Terrace Project Exposed It
The complicated history of the Norton Simon Cranach paintings
At the center of the first lawsuit are two works created around 1530 by German Renaissance painter Lucas Cranach the Elder.
The Norton Simon’s collection records describe “Adam” and “Eve” as oil paintings on panel. The records also state that the pair had been associated with the Stroganoff Collection.
According to the museum’s provenance records, the Soviet government transferred the paintings to Antiquariat Leningrad. They were then sold at a Berlin auction in May 1931, where prominent Dutch Jewish art dealer Jacques Goudstikker acquired them.
Their history changed dramatically in 1940.
The museum records state that the paintings were appropriated from Goudstikker and passed through Alois Miedl before reaching Hermann Göring, one of Adolf Hitler’s most powerful officials.
After World War II, Allied forces recovered the paintings and transferred them to the Dutch state.
The later ownership history became a major part of the legal dispute. George Stroganoff Scherbatoff, a descendant of the Stroganoff family, claimed the paintings in the 1960s. According to the museum’s records, the works were transferred to him in 1966 and subsequently sold through New York dealer Spencer A. Samuels & Co.
The Norton Simon Foundation acquired “Adam” in 1971 and “Eve” during the same period. Both works eventually became part of the Norton Simon Art Foundation’s holdings.
Marei von Saher’s claim returns to the courtroom
Marei von Saher, the surviving heir of Jacques Goudstikker, has spent years seeking the return of artworks from his collection.
She has now assigned her claimed rights in the Cranach paintings to Daniel Gryczman and the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, enabling the organization to bring the latest lawsuit.
That development is important because the current case does not arise from an entirely new ownership dispute. It follows years of litigation involving the same paintings and competing accounts of their provenance.
A Venezuelan rescue dog’s years of disaster-response work were formally honored with a permanent public monument earlier this month: for more, check our article on Rescue Dog Tsunami Honored With Bronze Statue in Venezuela After Years of Saving Lives
Norton Simon points to earlier court rulings
The Norton Simon Art Foundation strongly disputes the suggestion that the latest lawsuit establishes that the Cranach paintings are unlawfully held.
In a 2018 statement, the foundation said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had unanimously affirmed summary judgment in its favor and determined that the foundation had good title to the paintings. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to review that decision.
The museum also emphasizes that the Cranachs’ history began before their wartime seizure from Goudstikker. Its position is that the paintings had already been removed from the Stroganoff collection by the Soviet government and sold at the 1931 Berlin auction before Goudstikker purchased them.
The museum has continued exhibiting the paintings and says it has preserved them for the public.
“For nearly 50 years, they have been on view at the Norton Simon Museum and will continue to be accessible to the public for years to come,” the museum said.
The renewed case therefore enters an existing legal landscape in which previous litigation produced rulings favorable to the museum, while the plaintiffs argue that newer California protections provide a route for the ownership dispute to be considered again.
Jewish Federation plans to support Holocaust survivors
The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles says its participation in the Cranach case is also connected to its work with Holocaust survivors.
Rabbi Noah Farkas, the federation’s president and CEO, said the organization intends to direct most of the net proceeds from any recovery of the paintings toward helping Holocaust survivors living in the Los Angeles area.
The federation estimates that approximately 2,500 Holocaust survivors live in the region.
“These are incredibly beautiful European masterpieces stolen from a Jewish family to enrich the Nazi party and fund the war and death machine against the people,” Farkas said.
Farkas also described the federation’s involvement as a way to support survivors who are now elderly.
Von Saher separately expressed support for the organization taking up her family’s claim.
“This effort represents a meaningful step toward justice for Holocaust survivors and victims of Nazi-era atrocities.”
The case therefore combines a dispute over ownership of major Renaissance paintings with the federation’s stated intention to direct any potential financial recovery toward Holocaust survivors.
California changed its law after the Cassirer Pissarro dispute
The legal backdrop to the Cranach lawsuit partly traces back to another lengthy dispute over Nazi-looted art.
The Cassirer family has spent years seeking the return of Camille Pissarro’s 1897 painting “Rue Saint-Honoré, Afternoon, Rain Effect,” which was taken from the family during Nazi persecution.
The painting eventually entered the collection of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid. Litigation over the work reached federal courts, and the Ninth Circuit determined that Spanish law applied in that case.
California subsequently passed Assembly Bill 2867. Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel authored the legislation, and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it on September 16, 2024.
The law requires California law to apply in specified cases involving art and personal property lost through political persecution, including Holocaust-era property. It also created a cause of action for eligible California residents and representatives seeking recovery of qualifying property.
The California Senate’s legislative analysis described the measure as applying retroactively in specified circumstances and allowing California residents or representatives of estates of California residents to pursue recovery of artwork or personal property lost through political persecution.
Gabriel has presented the legislation as a way to give Holocaust survivors and their families a stronger route toward restitution.
The federal HEAR Act changed the legal landscape in 2026
A separate federal development arrived this year.
President Donald Trump signed the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 into law on April 13, 2026. The measure became Public Law 119-82.
Its stated purpose is to clarify the 2016 HEAR Act and appropriately limit defenses based on the passage of time and other non-merits defenses.
The original 2016 law established a six-year period beginning after a claimant actually discovered the identity and location of the artwork and the claimant’s possessory interest.
The 2026 amendment removed the previous December 31, 2026 sunset date while retaining the six-year discovery framework. It also bars certain defenses based on the passage of time when a claim is brought within the applicable period.
Joel Greenberg, founder of Art Ashes, a nonprofit that helps families pursue Nazi-looted art, described the significance of the changes:
“These new laws mean that technical defenses will no longer stick in court. Every case will be heard on its merits.”
The legislation does not mean every old claim can automatically be revived indefinitely. Courts must still determine whether individual claims satisfy statutory requirements and whether claimants can establish their ownership rights.
Seven Auschwitz watercolors are at the center of the second lawsuit
The other lawsuit takes the story from Renaissance Europe to Auschwitz.
The case concerns seven watercolors created by Dinah Gottliebova Babbitt while she was imprisoned at Auschwitz.
Babbitt was a Jewish artist who later settled in California and worked in animation. During her imprisonment, Nazi physician Josef Mengele ordered her to paint portraits of Roma prisoners.
The circumstances surrounding the works are central to the dispute. Babbitt did not create the paintings as an ordinary commissioned artist working under free conditions. She was a prisoner at Auschwitz and created the portraits under Nazi coercion.
The seven watercolors are now held by the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum.
Babbitt spent years seeking their return. She died in 2009, and her daughters, Michele Babbitt Kane and Karin Wendy Babbitt, have now brought the case in her place.
Their federal complaint asks the court to recognize Babbitt’s ownership rights, order the return of the watercolors and award damages.
The Auschwitz museum’s historical records also identify Gottliebova Babbitt among the artists whose prisoner portraits form part of its collections.
Auschwitz Memorial argues the paintings are historical evidence
The museum’s position is substantially different from the ownership dispute involving the Norton Simon Cranachs.
The Auschwitz Memorial does not dispute the extraordinary circumstances in which Babbitt created the watercolors. Instead, it argues that the works should remain at the memorial because they form part of the surviving documentation of Nazi crimes.
Paweł Sawicki, a spokesperson for the Auschwitz Memorial, said the portraits should remain there because of their documentary value.
“must remain in the Memorial”
Sawicki has also argued that the works should not simply be categorized as “Nazi-looted art,” because Babbitt created them while she was a prisoner and under orders rather than owning pre-existing works that were subsequently confiscated.
The museum says the portraits of Roma and Sinti prisoners are among the limited surviving documentation associated with Mengele’s criminal activities at Auschwitz.
Sawicki further said:
“While fully respecting the rights of people who created some of the documents here, we are of the opinion that any loss in the collections of the Memorial will constitute irreparable harm.”
The museum’s argument is that removing the paintings would damage the historical record preserved at Auschwitz.
The Babbitt family has pursued the watercolors for decades
The latest lawsuit is not the family’s first attempt to recover the works.
Babbitt herself sought their return for years. The museum’s refusal to release the watercolors ultimately left the dispute unresolved after her death.
Her daughters’ new lawsuit argues that the circumstances surrounding the paintings make the case particularly suited to the protections established under California’s 2024 legislation.
They are asking a U.S. court to determine their mother’s ownership rights even though the watercolors are currently held by a Polish state museum.
That creates additional legal questions involving jurisdiction, the application of California law and whether a U.S. court can order the return of cultural property held by an institution in another country.
Why the Cranach and Auschwitz cases are legally different
Although both lawsuits are being discussed in the context of Nazi-looted art, their ownership histories are not the same.
The Cranach dispute involves pre-existing artworks that passed through multiple owners and institutions, including Goudstikker, Göring, the Dutch state and Stroganoff descendants before reaching the Norton Simon Foundation. The parties disagree about which elements of that ownership history should control the present claim.
The Babbitt case involves artworks created inside Auschwitz under coercive circumstances. Its central dispute concerns whether Babbitt and her heirs retained ownership rights to paintings she was forced to create and whether those rights can require a museum to surrender them decades later.
That distinction could make the cases significant tests of different aspects of the newer legal framework.
What happens next in the two lawsuits?
Neither lawsuit has resulted in an order requiring either museum to surrender the disputed artworks.
The Norton Simon Art Foundation continues to point to previous federal court rulings supporting its title to the Cranach paintings. The Auschwitz Memorial maintains that Babbitt’s watercolors are part of its historical collection and should remain there.
The plaintiffs, meanwhile, are relying on newer California and federal protections to pursue claims they argue should be considered on their merits.
The courts will now have to address questions involving title, jurisdiction, statutory coverage and the effect of previous rulings.
The wider implications could reach beyond these particular artworks. If the lawsuits establish that certain previously blocked Holocaust-era art claims can proceed under the newer legal framework, other heirs and representatives could potentially seek judicial review of similarly disputed works.
Museums holding Holocaust-era objects may continue to argue that preservation, historical documentation and previously established ownership rights must also be considered alongside restitution claims.
For now, the Cranach “Adam” and “Eve” paintings remain on display at the Norton Simon Museum, while the seven Babbitt watercolors remain in the Auschwitz Memorial’s collection. The courts will determine what happens next.
More Unusual Circumstances Making News
A UK couple’s frantic drive to the hospital took an unexpected turn when their child arrived before they reached it, in a parking lot outside a fast-food restaurant: read our post on Baby Born in KFC Car Park Named ‘Colonel Cody’ After Parents’ Race to Hospital Ends in Bromsgrove
Conclusion
The two September 14, 2026 lawsuits have reopened difficult questions surrounding Holocaust-era artworks, ownership and restitution at a moment when California and federal law have changed the legal landscape.
The Cranach case revisits a complicated chain of ownership involving Jacques Goudstikker, the Stroganoff family and the Norton Simon Foundation, despite earlier court rulings supporting the museum’s title. The Babbitt case raises a different question over seven watercolors created under coercion at Auschwitz and now held by a memorial institution that says they are essential historical documentation.
Neither case has been resolved. The lawsuits will now test how the newer legal protections operate when decades-old ownership claims meet previous rulings, international cultural institutions and competing arguments about preservation and restitution.
Source and research disclaimer: This article has been prepared based on thorough research of the sources provided with the original material, including court records, government information, museum records, official statements and reported coverage. It reflects the information available from those sources and does not imply independent verification beyond what the provided material supports. The lawsuits described remain ongoing legal disputes, and the claims, positions and legal arguments discussed have not been finally resolved by the courts.
Sources
- Associated Press: New laws trigger a fresh legal fight over Nazi-looted art
- California Governor’s Office: AB 2867 and Holocaust-era art recovery
- California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel: AB 2867
- U.S. Government Publishing Office: Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025
- The White House: HEAR Act signed into law, April 13, 2026
- Library of Congress: 2026 amendment to the HEAR Act
- Norton Simon Museum: Eve, Lucas Cranach the Elder
- Norton Simon Museum: Adam, Lucas Cranach the Elder
- Norton Simon Art Foundation: Statement on the Cranach litigation
- U.S. District Court case record: Kane v. Państwowe Muzeum Auschwitz-Birkenau
- Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum: Portraits exhibition record including Dinah Gottliebova Babbitt
- Los Angeles Times: Two new lawsuits over Nazi-looted art
Featured Image Credit:
Héctor Berganza on Pexels
Leave a Reply