Alperin

AMENDED OPINION AND AMENDED CONCURRENCE/DISSENT

We are faced here with the question whether claims for losses allegedly suffered at the hands of a Nazi puppet regime during World War II are cognizable in our courts today. Because these claims, at least superficially, touch on foreign relations and potentially controversial political issues, it is tempting to jump to the conclusion that such claims are barred by the political question doctrine. The Supreme Court has counseled, however, that “it is error to suppose that every case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211 , 82 S.Ct. 691 , 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). The justiciability inquiry is limited to “ ‘political questions,’ not ...‘political cases,’.” id. at 217 , 82 S.Ct. 691 , and should be made on a “case-by-case” basis, id. at 211 , 82 S.Ct. 691 .

*538 Although the political question doctrine often lurks in the shadows of cases involving foreign relations, it is infrequently addressed head on. See, e.g., Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan, 332 F.3d 679, 682 (D.C.Cir.2003), vacated and remanded by — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2835 , 159 L.Ed.2d 265 (2004) (explaining that…

concurring in part, and dissenting in part:

It is unlikely that a better case could be made for the majority’s view that some of these matters are justiciable than the one made by Judge McKeown in her well written opinion. Nevertheless, and with all due respect to my esteemed colleagues, I find part of their analysis unconvincing. In the main, the segregation for analytical purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims into two distinct groups — “Property Claims” as distinguished from “War Objective Claims”— splits the atom where it is not divisible. In this respect, I agree with the defendants/appellees: “All claims asserted by plaintiffs are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the Executive Branch’s powers over war-related crimes, such that the judiciary is powerless to adjudicate them.” Accordingly, although I agree that the so-called War Objective Claims are not justiciable, I respectfully dissent as to the others.

I concur in and adopt the district court’s view that appellants’ complaint unmistakably and inextricably raises issues that our Constitution commits to the legislative and executive branches of our government, not to the judiciary. Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 242 F.Supp.2d 686…

Volume 1 of

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMIL ALPERIN; JEWGENIJA 

ROMANOVA; MARIA DANKEWITSCH;

VLADIMIR MORGUNOV, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated;

ORGANIZATION OF UKRAINIAN

ANTIFASCIST RESISTANCE FIGHTERS;

UKRAINIAN UNION OF NAZI

VICTIMS AND PRISONERS; VLADIMIR

BRODICH; WILLIAM DORICH; IGOR

NAJFELD, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly No. 03-15208 situated; LIZABETH LALICH; MLADEN DJURICICH; ROBERT PREDRAG  D.C. No.

GAKOVICH; NEVENKA VUKASOVIC CV-99-04941-MMC

MALINOWSKI; ELI ROTEM; MILORAD

SKORIC; VELJKO MILJUS; FRED

ZLATKO HARRIS; MILJA CONGER;

ALLEN DOLFI HERSKOVICH; BOGDAN

KLJAIC; DAVID LEVY; ZDENKA

BAUM RUCHWARGER; VLADAN

CELEBONOVIC; DESA TOMASEVIC

WAKEMAN; DANIEL PYEVICH;

KOVILJKA POPOVIC; JASENOVAC

RESEARCH INSTITUTE; THE

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF FORMER



6643 6644 ALPERIN v. VATICAN BANK

JUVENILE PRISONERS OF FASCISM OF 

UKRAINE, RUSSIA, AND BELARUS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VATICAN BANK, aka Institute of Religious Works…