Back

Changes in U.S. and U.K. Restitution Laws are Afoot, Museums are Worried, Claimants are Cautiously Optimistic, ADR Practitioners are Attentive – Where Does This Leave us?

April 6, 2026

Screenshots from The Institute of Art & Law and Congress.Gov, respectively

By Marina Rastorfer

headlines Changes in U S and U K Restitution Laws are Afoot — Nazi-era Looted Art Restitution in the News.

An argument that has come up on numerous occasions over the years when discussing changes in restitution laws and repatriation is whether museums are at risk of losing their collections. This fear has recently been rekindled by a tinder, or two – new changes to the UK Charities Act 2022 and the US HEAR Act 2025. While both the proposed UK and US changes in law deal with similar issues, there are two important distinctions to keep in mind: 1) the stage of their current implementation, and 2) the alleged actors who will receive more advocacy powers.

While the UK amendments have already been implemented (despite significant forthcoming adjustments), the US proposed amendments still need to be signed by the President prior to becoming law. Further, the US proposed amendments aim to give power to claimants of Nazi-looted restitution claims, while the UK amendments aim to give museums more independent power to choose to restitute based on moral obligations otherwise not legally imposed on them.

New UK Restitution law

CfAL London Changes in U S and U K Restitution Laws are Afoot — A Bridge in London

In November, 2025, the UK made changes to their law enabling restitutions on moral grounds by non-national museums in England and Wales which are established as charities.^{^[1]} The change in law passed as part of the Charities Act 2022 (sections 15 and 16) which had previously been put on hold for many years.^{^[2]} The intent behind the change in law, was to make it easier for museums in England and Wales to restitute objects from their collections on moral grounds, however, the initial proposed changes specifically excluded national museums.^{^[3]} Sixteen museums in total, including foundational institutions like the British Museum, the Tate, and the National Gallery were specifically excluded by name.^{^[4]}

Prior to these changes, charity trustees in the UK had to seek authorization from the Charity Commission to make a transfer of charity property when there was no legal obligation to do so, and instead, a moral ‘obligation.’^{^[5]} These moral obligations are also known as an ex gratia payment (gestures of goodwill).^{^[6]} Under the proposed changes, charity trustees no longer have to seek permission and may decide independently to make ex gratia payments.^{^[7]} Further, and importantly, ex gratia payments will no longer follow a subjective legal threshold test (i.e., trustees showing they personally feel a moral obligation), and instead, will follow an objective test (i.e., trustees showing that a reasonable person in such a position would feel a moral obligation to return).^{^[8]} However, authorization for any ex gratia payments over £20,000 (based on the charity’s prior yearly gross annual income) will be required from the Charity Commission.^{^[9]}

The initial exclusion of the sixteen national museums has been criticized by advocates for restitution and repatriation in the UK from the outset, claiming that these museums were enabled to continue hiding behind existing national statutory restrictions prohibiting repatriation.^{^[10]} This suggested criticism is similarly reflected in the implementation delays of sections 15 and 16 of the Charities Act 2022 based on concerns by national galleries and museums amid restitution claims of cultural assets on the part of claimants and advocates.^{^[11]} Further, a number of Acts of the UK Parliament prevent museums from freely disposing of objects including the National Heritage Act of 1983 and the British Museum Act of 1963.^{^[12]}

Where do things stand today? Whether it was always the intention of UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) or whether the cries of frustration were heard and answered, the exclusion of the sixteen national museums is currently, ‘in review.’ In January, 2026, the DCMS has confirmed that it will review the exclusion of national museums and that such exclusions were always meant to be temporary.^{^[13]}

It is difficult to imagine that public criticism by legal bodies and legal experts including law firms fell on deaf ears.^{^[14]} Significantly, the UK branch of the International Council for Museums (ICOM) sent a letter to the DCMS seeking clarification as to why national museums were excluded.^{^[15]} These same clarifications were asked by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI), drawn from both Houses of Parliament and appointed to consider statutory instruments, in their January report in 2025.^{^[16]} The DCMS in its response to these clarifications has confirmed that the decision to exclude these sixteen national museums will be reviewed by February, 2027.^{^[17]} As the ICOM letter stated in its concluding words, “ICOM UK welcomes this response.”^{^[18]}

New HEAR Act 2025

CfAL DC Changes in U S and U K Restitution Laws are Afoot — A Bridge in DC.

The US Senate and House have unanimously approved the HEAR Act 2025 extending the original HEAR Act 2016.^{^[19]} Now that the bill has passed Congress, the bill must next be approved by the President before becoming law – this article’s attempt at offering a brief separation of powers review.

The original HEAR Act was signed into law under President Obama, to provide victims of Nazi persecution and their heirs a ‘fair and just’ opportunity to recover stolen art – one of the most profound steps by the US in their efforts to implement the Washington Principles. However, since its inception, the HEAR Act, despite its intentions, continued to prevent claimants from overcoming legal obstacles limiting their options for restitution.^{^[20]} Principally, the new HEAR Act seeks to remedy defenses that can currently be raised against restitution claims despite the Act’s granting of a national six-year statute of limitations to sue after the claimant’s actual discovery.^{^[21]} While the six-year statute of limitation post-claimant discovery of facts relevant to the claim will remain, defenses such as delay in bringing a claim (i.e., laches), prolonged/ unchallenged possession, protected possession under foreign law without knowledge of theft (i.e., acquisitive prescription) and foreign state seizures of citizen property (i.e., international comity) will be precluded to permit claims to be resolved on the merits and not dismissed due solely on the passage of time.^{^[22]} Associations like the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) applauded this step by the Senate in light of continued time-based defenses that have blocked claimants’ recovery efforts.^{^[23]} Further, the WJRO has reported in September, 2025, on the low percentile of objects currently in US museums for which provenance research is available – turning to the new HEAR Act with aspirations for newly promoted transparency essential to resolving Nazi-looted art claims.^{^[24]}

Applause, however, has not been shared by all. In the summer months of 2025, numerous museums lobbied against strengthening the HEAR Act.^{^[25]} The Association of American Museum Directors (AAMD) paid $8,000 to lobby elected representatives on the changes that the HEAR Act of 2025 promises.^{^[26]} According to the AAMD spokesperson, Sascha Freudenheim, the association supports an extension of the HEAR Act in its current 2016 form to permit institutes time to decide the effectiveness of the Act.^{^[27]}

The actual bill makes clear, atop the first page, what “improvements” it seeks from the 2016 Act.^{^[28]} Specifically, it lists recent court decisions that have frustrated the intent of the HEAR Act’s purpose by dismissing lawsuits in reliance on defenses based on the passage of time.^{^[29]} It lists as examples Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 928 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2019), Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Foundation, 89 F.4^th 1226 (9^th Cir. 2024), and Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 897 F.3d 1141 (9^th Cir. 2018).^{^[30]} The Act, in many ways, reads reprimanding – a red marker, so to speak, crossing out and writing in the margins of the HEAR Act 2016 can be gleamed throughout its pages.

What do ICOM UK, ICOM International, HEAR Act 2016, and HEAR Act 2025 all Have in Common?

As stated earlier in this article, the original HEAR Act 2016, was written into law as a major national legal implementation of the Washington Principles of 1998.^{^[31]} In both the Washington Principles and in the language of the HEAR Act 2016, ADR mechanisms are recommended to resolve claims to recover Nazi-confiscated art.^{^[32]} Specifically, the original HEAR Act states:

“[…] the use of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation panels established for this purpose with the aid of experts in provenance research and history will yield just and fair resolutions in a more efficient and predictable manner.”^{^[33]}

Importantly, this language has not been changed in the HEAR Act 2025. The entire list of defenses that the proposed HEAR Act 2025 aims to squash, which to reiterate is its entire purpose, is made-up of barriers that claimants face in litigation. The named defenses: laches, adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, usucapion, act of state doctrine, forum non conveniens, international comity, and prudential exhaustion are all either defenses based on ‘passage of time’ or ‘non-merits’ defenses – in other words, procedural.^{^[34]} And yet, despite being ‘only’ procedural, the now infamous cases for restitution claims (listed above) all involved and were stifled by these defenses. This would, most likely, not occur in ADR proceedings dealing with the same claims and claimants. This is not to say that opposing parties would be defenseless, however, given the nature of ADR proceedings as compared to court proceedings – a much less stringent adherence to procedural rules and threshold requirements is required prior to hearing a claim on its merits. Such alternative forums (including arbitration and mediation) are recommended for Nazi-looted restitution claims by the Washington Principles and the HEAR Act 2016 for a reason and case law precedent confirms it.

Amicus Changes in U S and U K Restitution Laws are Afoot — Cover of an Amicus Brief.

Considering the apparent influence that ICOM has with the UK amendments under the Charities Act 2022, it bears noting that they too recommend and promote the use of mediation (and other forms of ADR) in the resolution of disputes over ownership of objects in museum collections.^{^[35]} Further, ICOM has and continues to collaborate with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) including the Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation: An alternative litigation resolution method adapted to art and cultural heritage fields with ICOM Paris.^{^[36]} In its first sentence, the joint press release, 2011, of WIPO and ICOM states that:

“[t]he increase in ownership disputes between museums and other parties […] such as return and restitution claims or intellectual property rights, required to find settlement more adequate than litigation.”^{^[37]}

Given the newness and still, largely, uncertain implementations of sections 15 and 16 of the Charities Act 2022 and the HEAR Act 2025, speculations seem more tenable at this stage than clear answers. It remains to be seen whether the worries of museums will playout (i.e., a flood of claims causing significant collection reductions) or whether restitution advocates’ reservations as to those fears (i.e., despite less barriers there will be no pillaging of museum collections) are more realistic. As a final note, context matters – neither the UK or US amendments are taking place in isolation from current, respective, national laws dealing with restitution and repatriation. How these amendments will interplay with the existing laws and the diverse entities involved will be the proof in the pudding.

About the Author

Marina Rastorfer is a Spring 2026 Legal Intern at the Center for Art Law while completing her LL.M. in Dispute Resolution Advocacy at Cardozo Law. Marina graduated from Columbia University in 2020 with a M.A. in Art History after which she attended law school at GW Law where she focused her J.D. on Art Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution. It is at the junction of Art History, Art Law, and Alternative Dispute Resolution where Marina aims to continue expanding her knowledge and to dedicate her profession.

Select References

Geraldine Kendall Adams, Law change enabling restitution on moral grounds comes into force this month, Museums Association (Nov. 20, 2025), https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2025/11/law-change-enabling-restitution-on-moral-grounds-comes-into-force-this-month/. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
The Royal Armouries, The British Library, The British Museum, The Imperial War Museum, The National Gallery, The Natural History Museum, National Museums Liverpool, The National Maritime Museum, The National Portrait Gallery, The Museum of London, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, The Science Museum, Sir John Soane’s Museum, The Tate Gallery, The Victoria and Albert Museum, and The Wallace Collection. Gov.UK, How charities can make a moral, or ‘ex gratia,’ payment (CC7), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ex-gratia-payments-by-charities-cc7/ex-gratia-payments-by-charities-cc7, last visited on Mar. 17, 2026. ↑
Id supra note 3. ↑
An ex gratia payment is defined as a payment that a trustee could reasonably be regarded as being under a moral obligation to pay, but where otherwise, they are not legally obliged, the charity’s governing documents do not have any powers for such payment, no other legal powers are available to the trustee for the payment, and the where the trustee cannot justify the payment as being in the best interest of the charity. Id supra note 4. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Gareth Harris, New UK law makes restation easier – but excludes national museums, such as the British Museum, The Art Newspaper (Nov. 27, 2025), https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2025/11/27/new-uk-law-makes-restitution-easier-but-excludes-national-museums-including-the-british-museum. ↑
Withers, New ex gratia rules coming into force on 27 November 2025 – what do charities need to know?, (Nov. 18, 2025), https://www.withersworldwide.com/en-gb/insight/read/new-ex-gratia-rules-coming-into-force-on-27-november-2025-%E2%80%93-what-do-charities-need-to-know. ↑
Id. ↑
Geraldine Kendall Adams, DCMS to review exclusion on national museums from new restitution rules, Museums Association (Jan. 29, 2026), https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2026/01/dcms-to-review-exclusion-of-national-museums-from-new-restitution-rules/. ↑
The British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, The International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the British legal experts question the British government’s rules on cultural restitution, (Jan. 9, 2026), https://www.parthenonuk.com/latest-news/1055-the-international-council-of-museums-icom-and-british-legal-experts-question-the-british-government-s-rules-on-cultural-restitution. ↑
ICOM, is a foundational organization among cultural institutions which, largely, sets the professional and ethical standards that museums look to on an international scale. ICOM UK, ICOM UK seeks clarification on the UK Charities Act 2022 and Restitution, (Jan. 28, 2026), https://uk.icom.museum/icom-uk-seeks-clarification-on-the-uk-charities-act-2022-and-restitution/. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025, S. 1884, 119^th Cong. (2025-2026), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1884?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22S.+1884%22%7D&s=2&r=1. ↑
Martha Lufkin, Revamped Holocaust recovery bill to scupper powerful legal defenses, The Art Newspaper (Jul. 7, 2025), https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2025/07/07/revamped-holocaust-recovery-bill-to-scupper-powerful-legal-defences. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
WJRO, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Advances Holocaust Art Restitution Bill, (Nov. 6, 2025), https://wjro.org.il/u-s-senate-judiciary-committee-advances-holocaust-art-restitution-bill/. ↑
Id. ↑
Zachary Small, Museums Lobby Against Strengthening a Holocaust Art Recovery Law, The New York Times (Jul. 31, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/31/arts/design/holocaust-art-recovery-law.html. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
To clarify the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, to appropriately limit the application of defenses based on the passage of time and other non-merits defenses to claims under that Act, H.R. 4235, 119^th Cong. (2025-2026), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr4235ih/pdf/BILLS-119hr4235ih.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Holocaust Expropriated art Recovery Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-308, 130 Stat. 1524 (2016), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-16517/pdf/COMPS-16517.pdf. ↑
ADR stands for Alternative Dispute Resolution and includes three primary procedures which are negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. These procedures are used to settle disputes with the help of a third-party neutral. Important distinctions between these procedures include the non-binding nature of mediation versus the binding nature of arbitration. Further, there is a range of formality that differs between these procedures – mediation is on the less formal and more flexible end, while arbitration is more formal and less flexible in the sense that the third-party neutral takes the role of decision maker based on the evidence presented to them as compared to the mediator who, most often, drives the parties to make the decisions on their own without providing significant evaluative directions (i.e., facilitates). Core concepts of ADR include neutrality and impartiality, party autonomy, confidentiality, and tailored solution finding. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Alissandra Cummins, Promoting the use of Mediation in Resolution of disputers over the Ownership of objects in Museum Collections: Statement by the President of ICOM Alissandra Cummins, International Council of Museums, Press Release (Jan. 2006), https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/mediation_eng.pdf. ↑
International Council of Museums, Art and Cultural Heritage Mediation: An alternative litigation resolution method adapted to art and cultural heritage fields, Press Conference, Paris, France (Jul. 12, 2011), https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/110701_DP_Mediation_EN.pdf. ↑
Id. ↑

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.