Two California lawsuits seek the return of Holocaust-era artworks from museums in Pasadena and Auschwitz, reopening hard questions about ownership, memory, and justice.
The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles sued the Norton Simon Museum over Lucas Cranach the Elder’s “Adam and Eve.” The daughters of Dinah Gottliebova Babbitt filed a separate federal suit over watercolors she created while imprisoned at Auschwitz. CBS News reported that both cases were filed Monday in Los Angeles courts, though it did not provide a calendar date.
Both lawsuits ask courts to return works tied to Jewish families persecuted during the Holocaust. Recent state and federal laws have expanded the ability of survivors and heirs to pursue such claims, while both museums maintain that the works should remain where they are.
The disputes raise a basic question that museums cannot avoid: Does decades-long possession settle ownership when the path into a collection runs through Nazi persecution?
Cranach painted the two oil-on-panel works in 1530. Dutch Jewish art dealer Jacques Goudstikker bought them at a Berlin auction in 1931, after the Soviet Union put them up for sale.
The paintings were later seized from Goudstikker’s collection by Hermann Göring, described as Adolf Hitler’s second-in-command. They eventually reached California and were sold during the 1960s to the Pasadena Museum of Modern Art, which became the Norton Simon Museum.
Marei von Saher, Goudstikker’s sole heir, transferred her rights to the Jewish Federation. The federation and its board chairman, Daniel Gryczman, then filed the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit seeking the paintings’ return.
The Associated Press also reported that the federation is acting on rights transferred by von Saher. That transfer puts a major Los Angeles institution behind a restitution claim that has already spent years in court.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to enter the Cranach dispute in May 2019, leaving lower-court decisions in place. The latest suit follows a change in California law meant to give Holocaust art claims another path to a hearing.
Assembly Bill 2867 requires California law to govern recovery lawsuits brought by California residents or their heirs over art seized during the Holocaust or other persecution. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure in September 2024.
Democratic Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel wrote the law after a federal ruling allowed Madrid’s Thyssen-Bornemisza National Museum to retain a Camille Pissarro painting taken from the Cassirer family by the Nazis in 1939. Gabriel urged museums to “do some deep introspection on whether they want to be on the right side of history.”
The Norton Simon Museum says it legally holds title to “Adam and Eve.” Its statement also made clear that the new lawsuit has not changed its plans for the paintings.
The museum stated:
“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,”
Public access has value, but it does not answer the ownership claim. A museum can display a work for generations and still face a duty to explain how it obtained that work and why it should keep it.
Rabbi Noah Farkas, president and CEO of the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, said the federation plans to use most net proceeds from recovered art to assist about 2,500 Holocaust survivors in the Los Angeles area.
Farkas said:
“It's our honor to take on this role on behalf of the community and use most of the proceeds to help these elderly survivors live out the last years of their lives in dignity, comfort and peace, something their family members were denied during the Holocaust.”
Von Saher called the effort “a meaningful step toward justice for Holocaust survivors and victims of Nazi era atrocities.” Her decision gives the federation authority to pursue the claim and ties any recovery to survivors still living in the region.
The second lawsuit concerns a different kind of artwork. Babbitt, a Holocaust survivor and California-based animator, created watercolors of fellow prisoners while held at Auschwitz.
Nazi physician Josef Mengele forced her to make the paintings. Her daughters are now suing in federal court in Los Angeles for their return from the Auschwitz Memorial.
The Memorial rejects the claim that the watercolors should be treated as Nazi-looted art. Spokesman Pawel Sawicki said they “must remain in the Memorial” as part of its documentation of Auschwitz.
Sawicki explained the institution’s position:
“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,”
He added that losing even a small part of the collection would harm the memory of Auschwitz’s victims. That argument treats the watercolors as historical records whose meaning depends on their remaining at the site.
The daughters’ claim puts a different principle before the court. Their mother made the works under coercion, and her family is asking why the institution should retain control over them.
The lawsuits arrive after changes to both California law and the federal Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act. Breitbart reported that the changes strengthened and extended the ability of survivors and heirs to pursue recovery claims.
The laws do not decide who owns either set of works. They are intended to prevent procedural barriers from ending Holocaust restitution cases before courts examine the merits.
That distinction matters. The Norton Simon Museum claims legal title, while the Auschwitz Memorial argues that preserving its collection protects the historical record. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, seek the return of works linked to seizure or forced labor.
The Nazi regime seized more than 600,000 artworks across Europe between 1933 and 1945. Each surviving dispute carries its own chain of possession, legal history and claim to justice.
Courts should settle those claims through evidence and law, not institutional prestige or the mere passage of time. Public display cannot become a substitute for rightful ownership.
