Rehearing with a Chance of Restitution: The Effects of Rainfall and Recent Developments on Rue Saint Honoré

August 28, 2025

Camille Pissarro’s Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon, Effect of Rain (1897)

By Parsa Zaheri

Something is stirring once again in connection with the Parisian street of Rue Saint-Honoré, as a legal case that was once thought to be entirely wrapped up is now budding from new legal developments. In 1939, Nazi officials compelled Lilly Cassirer, a Jewish woman from Berlin, to sell a painting by Camille Pissarro which had been in her husband’s family collection since 1900. After 1939, the painting passed through multiple different hands before ending up in Spain at the Thyssen-Bornemisza (Thyssen) Museum in 1976. The painting in question was Pissarro’s Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon, Effect of Rain, an iconic Impressionist oil painting made by Pissarro while looking out from his hotel window onto the Rue Saint-Honoré, a historic Parisian street.

This case has already been discussed by the Supreme Court in the Cassirer v. Thyssen Bornemisza Collection Foundation from 2022. This particular case has become one of the longest-running restitution sagas, outperforming U.S. v. Portrait of Wally.

Beginning in 2005, the heirs of Lilly Cassirer, who had moved to California earlier in 1980, began litigation to recover the Pissarro. Numerous legal questions were brought up during the course of two decades of restitution efforts, such as the pivotal one of whether U.S. courts had jurisdiction over international entities, such as the Thyssen Museum, an instrumentality of the Spanish State, and what the right law is to apply when hearing a restitution dispute in a U.S. Court. This particular case was granted not only a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court, but it also led to modifications to California law, extending the statute of limitations and mandating the choice of law selection. Eventually, in 2022, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for the first time and agreed to hear the case, leading to the Supreme Court case in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, where the court decided that federal law should not have been applied in this case under choice-of-law rules, and that state choice-of-law rules should be applied instead. Soon after, the Ninth Circuit applied California’s choice-of-law rules and determined that Spanish law should be used in determining the rightful ownership of the Pissarro. The Cassirer case seemed to be settled once and for all, as Spanish law emphasizes the importance of good faith acquisitions as a determinant of rightful ownership; on the other hand, California law tends to prioritize the claims the original owners have to their looted property.^[1]

However, in a bolt from the blue in September 2024, the state of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 2867, a piece of legislation intended to specifically aid Holocaust survivors in recovering stolen works of art. Governor Gavin Newsom of California signed the bill into law at the Holocaust Museum in Los Angeles with David Cassirer, the great-grandson of Lilly Cassirer, and other descendants of Holocaust victims in attendance. The impetus for the bill seems to especially stem from the Cassirer case, given that Governor Newsom’s website states that “The bill was introduced following a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that has allowed a Spanish museum to retain possession of a famous Impressionist masterpiece.”^[2] David Cassirer also had some comments regarding the law, stating, “California has drawn a clear line under AB 2867, enabling the family to finally recover our impressionist masterpiece.” The use of the pronoun “our,” as well as the reference to the “impressionist masterpiece,” a clear allusion to the Pissarro in question, highlights the Cassirer family’s aspirations in recovering their long-lost work of art. However, the Thyssen Museum remains steadfast in its claim to the work by Pissarro. The website of the Thyssen tracks the legal battle over restitution for Pissarro’s work, and the last update to the history of the Cassirer case states that the case has been “officially close[d]” and “br[ought] to an end, definitively in the opinion of the Foundation.”^[3]

That said, in March 2025, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit in lieu of California’s AB 2867, opening up a pathway for restitution through the Assembly Bill. In consideration of the conflicting claims of the artwork and the potential impact of California’s new Assembly Bill, this article will review the substantive and legal implications of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in favor of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, as well as an analysis of the content of California’s AB 2867.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ Decision

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case in favor of the Thyssen Museum with the argument that Spanish law should be used in the case. As previously mentioned, under Spanish law, one of the primary determinants of rightful ownership is whether or not the acquisition was in good faith. In the Cassirer case, the Thyssen Museum purchased the artwork in good faith, as they were unaware that the Pissarro painting was sold by the Cassirer family under duress in 1939. The Ninth Circuit also noted that the Cassirer case in particular had a notable “moral component,” as well as significant media coverage in not only California and Spain but throughout Europe and Asia.^[4] Notwithstanding the moral imperative, the judges of the Ninth Circuit realized the necessity of applying the law uniformly and equally, choosing to apply Spanish law under California’s choice-of-law test.

California’s AB 2867

Good Title and Rightful Ownership

California’s Assembly Bill for the “Recovery of artwork and personal property lost due to persecution” was passed in the session year 2023-2024. The bill argues that substantive California law should apply in cases pertaining to stolen art from persecuted individuals, and Section 1, Part J, claims that the California state legislature has the “authority” to mandate the use of California law in “specified matters.” In defense of their claim to possess “authority” in applying California law in cases involving artwork and property lost after persecution, the bill cites California’s longstanding case law and Section 6(1) of the Second Conflict of Laws. While the Ninth Circuit decided that Spanish law should be applied given the conflict of laws between California state laws and Spanish national laws, Assembly Bill 2867 argues that California state laws should be applied in this case. The question of jurisdiction is critical because California law rejects the notion that the Thyssen Museum obtained “good title” after its years in possession of the painting. AB 2867 states that “a thief cannot convey good title to stolen works of art” in Section 1, Part A. Furthermore, in Section 1, Part E, the bill states that “stolen art should be returned to its rightful, original owner,” which seems to make the argument that, in cases relating to art sold under duress or seized during persecution, the rightful owners of works of art are the original owners, as opposed to any future possessor of the artwork. In Section 2, Part C, the bill specifically defines ‘duress’ as a “means of threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution against an order of the work of fine art in question” that is “sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act that otherwise would not have been performed.” Based on the reasonable person standard, it can be fairly deduced that Lilly Cassirer sold the work under duress, given that she sold the work in Berlin in 1939 for a price much lower than its true value in order to purchase an exit visa to flee Nazi Germany.^[5] However, even if California law is applied to the Cassirer case, this does not necessarily mean that the Thyssen Museum lacks a right to the Pissarro. The bill also recognizes that under California law, certain legal defenses would be applicable in suits like the Cassirer case. That being said, Section 3, Part F of the bill does reject legal claims of acquisition under good faith and adverse possession on the grounds that these defenses are invalid under the rejection of constructive notice in California law. Aside from those particular defenses, the bill specifically notes that other “legal defenses and doctrines” may be used, including “laches” and “unclean hands.”

California’s AB 2867: A Retroactive Law

California’s new Assembly Bill also has a retroactive component to it as well, which is likely to be challenged by the Thyssen Museum as unconstitutional if the case progresses to its next stages. In Article 1, Section I, the bill states that “the law appl[ies] retroactively for families who would be eligible to use the new law, but for whom the six-year limitations period would have already passed.”^[6] The retroactive effect of California’s bill allows the Cassirer family to still make their case in California courts and continue attempting to reclaim the Pissarro. Overall, given that the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision in consideration of California’s AB 2867, one must consider the potential new fate of Pissarro’s painting.

Implications of AB 2867

Ultimately, it is important to consider some of the implications of California’s Assembly Bill from September 2024 within the context of other international litigation cases in art law. Another case pending in California is the disputed Ancient Greek bronze statue of the Victorious Youth within the Getty Villa in Pacific Palisades. The nation of Italy has claimed ownership of the statue, and the European Court of Human Rights took the case and claimed that Italy did have a right to the work and a right to reclaim the work from the Getty Villa as well. However, the Getty Museum still maintains possession of the work, even a year after the decision by the European Court of Human Rights. Given the case where a California museum refuses to comply with the decision of a European court, it is difficult to imagine under what conditions the Thyssen Museum would choose to return the Pissarro, even if California law is applied in favor of the claimants on remand.

About the Author:

My name is Parsa, and I’m currently studying Political Science, as well as the History of Art and Architecture at Brown University. I am especially interested in exploring the interaction between the two disciplines within the subjects of human heritage, cultural assets, and intellectual property. I’m also personally interested in both the arts and jurisprudence, and I enjoy listening to political podcasts or monitoring art transactions at the art markets of Christie’s or Sotheby’s.

Select References:

1. “Art, Law, and Memory: The Complexities of International Restitution in the Cassirer Case.” Federal Bar Association, 20 Sept. 2024, http://www.fedbar.org/blog/art-law-and-memory-the-complexities-of-international-restitution-in-the-cassirer-case/. ↑
2. “Governor Newsom Signs Legislation to Help Holocaust Survivors Recover Art Stolen by the Nazis.” Governor of California, 8 May 2025, http://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/09/16/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-to-help-holocaust-survivors-recover-art-stolen-by-the-nazis/. ↑
3. “Thyssen-Bornemisza National Museum Madrid.” Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, http://www.museothyssen.org/en. Accessed 31 July 2025. ↑
4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT: Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1566_l5gm.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug. 2025. ↑
5. O’Driscoll, Sean. “Supreme Court Rules on $40 Million Painting Looted by Nazis.” Newsweek, Newsweek, 12 Mar. 2025, http://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-scotus-nazi-art-impressionist-painting-california-law-spanish-museum-2043421. ↑
6. “AB 2867: Recovery of Artwork and Personal Property Lost Due to Persecution.: Digital Democracy.” Home – Digital Democracy, calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240ab2867. Accessed 31 July 2025. ↑