Background:

The Art Institute of Chicago is involved in civil litigation in Illinois over the ownership of a drawing allegedly taken during the Nazi era. The case is being heard in Illinois, and both the museum and the object are located in Illinois.  However, the New York County District Attorney (DA) launched a separate criminal investigation and secured a New York court order requiring the museum to surrender the work. The Art Institute has appealed.

While this is the latest case of the DA targeting museums outside of its jurisdiction, it is not an isolated incident with at least 24 other museums in the U.S. across 14 states other than New York having received at least one subpeona from the DA.

Although the proper way to deal with personal property title disputes is to file an action in a civil tribunal, the DA has insisted that such disputes can be decided by Criminal Term.

What this means for museums:

The DA has previously issued subpoenas to at least 24 museums in 14 states. This overreach raises serious concerns about state-to-state jurisdiction and the precedent it could set for museums nationwide.

Additionally, the court relied on AAM and AAMD’s Nazi-era provenance guidelines as if they created legally binding requirements for museums, an interpretation that was never intended.

AAM and AAMD have submitted an amicus brief to ensure the New York Appellate Division understands the broad implications of this overreach by the DA, the misapplication of guidelines, and the far-reaching consequences for the entire museum field.

What is AAM’s position on the ownership claims?

AAM does not take a position on the ownership of the artwork and strongly supports ethical stewardship and the responsible, good-faith resolution of potential Nazi-era claims.

AAM’s interest is focused exclusively on the jurisdictional questions raised by this case—specifically, the risk that any museum, regardless of size, type, or location, could be subjected to legal action from prosecutors outside their own state, and that AAM’s professional guidelines could be misinterpreted as an enforceable legal standard. 

AAM’s sole priority is to ensure that museums nationwide can rely on a fair, consistent, and legally sound process and safeguard the museum community from harmful legal precedents—not to defend any specific institution.