Price v. United States
Price v. United States is a 1995 case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit about who owns artwork the United States had seized in Germany after World War II.
- What happened: Billy Price, a Texas businessman, bought some works from Heinrich Hoffmann’s heirs in the early 1980s and asked the U.S. government to hand over the items. When the government refused, Price sued for damages in 1983.
- Lower court ruling: The District Court in Texas denied the government’s attempt to dismiss the case and later ruled in Price’s favor, awarding about $8 million for the government’s alleged conversion of the paintings and archives and for Price’s loss of use.
- Legal issue: The central question was whether the United States could be sued for converting property that had been seized by, and then owned by, the government. The case also centered on whether sovereign immunity could be waived by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- The appellate decision: The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court, ruling that the United States has sovereign immunity from tort claims unless immunity is explicitly waived. The court found there was no waiver for the two main items at issue: the Hitler watercolors and the Hoffmann photographic archive.
- The watercolors: Four Adolf Hitler watercolors were stored in a castle during the war, moved to Munich, then Wiesbaden, and finally transferred to the United States around 1950. The court held the tort, if any, occurred when the watercolors were separated from Hoffmann’s other property and sent abroad, an act that happened in Germany. Because the act occurred outside the United States, the FTCA does not allow a U.S. court to entertain the claim.
- The main Hoffmann photo archive: This collection had been used as evidence at the Nuremberg Trials and was shipped to the United States around 1948–1949. In 1951, the Attorney General, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, vested all rights in the photographs in the United States. The archive later went to the National Archives. The FTCA does not cover claims arising from the administration of the Trading with the Enemy Act, and the court found Price’s challenge to the vesting order was too late, so there was no waiver of immunity.
- The Carlisle archive: A smaller, less well-documented set of photographs linked to Time magazine. The court found Price’s claim about this collection was untimely because he had not met the FTCA’s notice requirements (a written denial or a six-month waiting period).
- Final outcome: The appellate court held that the District Court had no subject matter jurisdiction to hear Price’s claims because the United States retained sovereign immunity and there was no valid waiver. Price’s suit was not allowed to proceed.
This page was last edited on 2 February 2026, at 23:43 (CET).