The appeals court on Monday reversed a lower court ruling that had dismissed the case on grounds that such historical claims should be dealt with by foreign policy rather than the judiciary.
The three-judge panel ruled that the key claims, such as those relating to lost or looted property, did not fall under the political question doctrine, the news agencies said.
"We conclude that some of the claims are barred by the political question doctrine and some of the claims are justifiable," the court wrote.
The Holocaust survivors originally filed the lawsuit with the federal court in San Francisco in 1999 against the Vatican Bank and the Franciscan Order, accusing them of receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in gold and other valuables taken from victims of the Ustasha regime in Croatia during WWII.
The Associated Press quoted a lawyer representing the survivors as saying that the decision, combined with a new pope expected to be chosen soon, could lead to an out-of-court settlement.
"A new pope might be more energetic than the old pope in these matters," attorney Jonathan Levy said.
In 1998, the US published a report on the Nazi gold, putting the value of the assets looted by the Ustashas at $80 million, which is equivalent to the present value of about $700 million.
In 1997, the Vatican denied allegations that the gold looted by the Ustasha regime from Jews had been transferred to the Vatican.
The plaintiffs alleged that the stolen assets may have been used to finance groups smuggling Nazis from Europe to South America, including Adolf Eichmann.
The Vatican Bank had earlier rejected all the allegations, saying that the issue should be addressed by foreign policy.
The news agencies said that a lawyer representing the Vatican Bank was unavailable for comment on Tuesday.
In 1998, Swiss banks agreed to pay $1.25 billion to Nazi victims and their families who accused the bank of stealing, concealing or sending to the Nazis hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Jewish holdings and destroying bank records to cover the paper trail.
The lawsuit, which the lower court dismissed in 2003, did not seek any specific monetary amount, but instead asked for, at least initially, for a review of how much money was involved.
A lawyer representing the original 24 plaintiffs, many of whom live in San Francisco, expressed hope the case would move forward quickly as some of the survivors have been waiting more than 50 years for restitution.
Judge Margaret McKeown warned that the victims faced "an uphill battle in pursuing their claims" because the allegations are decades old and ultimately could be dismissed because of "procedural and jurisdictional hurdles".
In dissent, Judge Stephen Trott said only Congress and the president, not the judicial branch, have the authority to deal with the fallout of World War II.