IRAC Brief
Issue
In the case of Pierre Konowaloff, Paris, France, v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art New York, New York, Pierre Konowaloff alleges that the Metropolitan Museum of Art acquired, displayed and retained a piece of art that was confiscated by the Russian Bolshevik regime from his great-grandfather in 1918. After gaining power in 1917, the Bolshevik regime issued decrees nationalizing property, and abolishing the private ownership of land and making museums property of the state. The Bolsheviks continued by confiscated artworks for possible sale abroad. In May 1933, Stephen C. Clark was a trustee of the Museum bequeathed the painting to the Museum after he died in 1960. The Museum of Art motioned to dismiss Konowaloff’s complaint, citing that the claims are barred by the act of state doctrine.
Rules of the Law(s) Applied to the Case
The law applied in this case was the act of state doctrine, which states, “local courts may not question the legal effect of a foreign state’s acts fully executed within its own territory” (US Legal, 2013). Therefore, the court dismissed the action against Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Analysis: How the Court Applied the Law

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit applied the act of state doctrine to this case because the art work was confiscated from Konowaloff’s family by the Bolshevik regime in Russia. Hence the act of state doctrine states that no other nation is sovereign within its own borders, and its domestic actions may not be questioned (US Legal, 2013). Therefore, the court concluded that the Museum had met its burden of showing that the act of state doctrine applies and affirmed the judgment.

Holding

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit found in favor of the Metropolitan Museum of Art because Konowaloff’s contentions were without merit, and found that the act of state