The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for American companies to press claims for compensation against Cuba by ruling in favor of ExxonMobil in its long-running lawsuit against Corporación CIMEX, a Cuban state-owned conglomerate. In a 6-3 decision, the justices held that foreign sovereign immunity - the legal shield that typically bars suits against foreign governments and their agents - does not apply in the circumstances presented by Exxon’s complaint under the Helms-Burton Act.
The majority opinion, authored by the court’s six conservative justices, reversed a 2024 lower court decision that had allowed CIMEX to invoke sovereign immunity. With that obstacle removed, Exxon’s 2019 case alleging that CIMEX unlawfully used a refinery and service stations once owned by Standard Oil, Exxon’s corporate predecessor, will return to a lower court for further proceedings to determine CIMEX’s potential liability.
At the center of the dispute is a provision of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act known as Title III. That provision permits lawsuits in U.S. courts against anyone who "traffics" in property confiscated by Cuba’s government after the 1959 revolution led by Fidel Castro. Exxon argues its Cuban oil and gas assets were seized in 1959 and later transferred to CIMEX, which the company says continues to hold and profit from the confiscated property.
Exxon’s complaint traces the original loss to Fidel Castro’s confiscation of the company’s Cuban assets in 1959. At the time, the property loss was valued at $70 million. Exxon says its current claim exceeds $1 billion, reflecting accrued interest and the possibility of enhanced damages.
The Supreme Court’s ruling removes a significant jurisdictional defense that had impeded Exxon’s ability to press its Title III claim. Lower court rulings in other Helms-Burton litigations have frequently resulted in dismissals on jurisdictional or procedural grounds, making it difficult historically for U.S. companies to prevail in these cases. A surge of roughly 40 lawsuits was filed under Title III in 2019 and 2020 after a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba during the Trump administration.
Congress drafted the Helms-Burton Act with a provision allowing the sitting U.S. president to suspend Title III on national security grounds. That suspension has been used by three presidents in the past to avoid diplomatic friction with allies whose companies have business interests in Cuba. The suspension was lifted by President Donald Trump in 2019, which opened the way for the wave of Title III filings.
The Trump administration also backed Exxon’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The decision arrives amid heightened tensions between the United States and Cuba. U.S. authorities on May 20 brought murder charges against former Cuban President Raúl Castro, Fidel Castro’s younger brother, a development described as a major escalation in the administration’s pressure campaign against Cuba’s government. Separately, policy measures under the Trump administration have included threatening sanctions on countries supplying fuel to Cuba - actions that the article says have effectively imposed a blockade, contributing to power outages and worsening a deepening crisis on the island.
While the Exxon decision removes the sovereign immunity roadblock, it does not resolve the merits of Exxon’s underlying claims. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts to revisit CIMEX’s potential liability and to evaluate other defenses that CIMEX may assert.
Relatedly, the Supreme Court earlier this term issued another ruling touching on Helms-Burton litigation. On May 21, the court handed a setback to four U.S. cruise operators faced with combined judgments totaling $440 million in litigation brought by Havana Docks Corporation. The judgments alleged that the cruise companies - Carnival, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Royal Caribbean Cruises and MSC Cruises - unlawfully used docks that Havana Docks had built and that were later seized.
In that case, the justices set aside a lower court decision that had tossed out the judgments against the cruise operators and remanded the matter to the lower court so it could consider other defenses offered by the cruise lines.
For Exxon, the high court’s decision represents a clearing of a crucial procedural hurdle but not a final victory on the merits. The dispute over properties seized in 1959, the valuation changes over time, and the possible scope of recoverable damages remain to be litigated in the lower courts.