The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two back-to-back arguments testing how broadly a 1996 statute allows Americans to sue over property Cuba confiscated after the 1959 revolution. The cases, scheduled for the Court's upcoming session, probe the contours of the Helms-Burton Act and the remedies Congress intended when it authorized private suits in U.S. courts.
One case centers on Exxon and its bid for damages exceeding $1 billion from Cuban state-owned entities for oil and gas assets seized by the Cuban government in 1960. The claim traces to the wholesale confiscation of Exxon's Cuban oil and gas holdings, an act the company has valued at $70 million at the time of seizure. Exxon’s present demand is considerably larger because it includes accrued interest and the potential for enhanced damages.
The second matter involves four major cruise operators - Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line and MSC Cruises - and whether they are legally liable for using a Havana terminal that had been seized in 1960. That terminal had been constructed by a U.S. firm that held a 99-year concession granted in 1934; Havana Docks, a U.S. entity, later brought the suit asserting trafficking in confiscated property. The cruise lines used the terminal between 2016 and 2019 after travel restrictions were relaxed during a prior administration.
Procedurally and legally, the two cases raise distinct questions. In Exxon’s litigation, a central issue is whether Cuban state-owned entities sued under Helms-Burton may assert the defense of foreign sovereign immunity, which can shield foreign states and their instrumentalities from lawsuits in U.S. courts unless an exception applies. Exxon sued Corporaci F3n CIMEX, Cuba’s largest conglomerate, in 2019, alleging CIMEX continued to hold and profit from the confiscated properties. Exxon appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court allowed the foreign sovereign immunity defense.
In the cruise line litigation, a federal judge initially concluded the lines unlawfully trafficked in confiscated property by using the Havana terminal, entering judgments in excess of $100 million. Those judgments were set aside by a lower court that found Havana Docks lacked a viable claim on the theory that the original concession would have expired in 2004, long before the cruise lines' use of the facilities. Havana Docks has appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking reinstatement of the earlier judgments.
Both disputes implicate the core question of how powerful a private right of action Congress meant to create under Helms-Burton. The statute permits lawsuits in U.S. courts against anyone who "traffics" in property confiscated by Cuba’s government following the revolution. When Congress enacted the law, it also authorized the U.S. president to suspend the private-rights provision on national security grounds. That suspension was routinely exercised by three successive presidents to avoid diplomatic friction with allies whose companies had investments in Cuba, but the suspension was lifted in 2019 during the Trump administration.
The White House has publicly backed Exxon in its litigation. The current administration has also characterized Cuba as "an unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security and has taken measures to increase pressure on Havana, including steps to cut off Venezuelan oil shipments to the island and threats to impose tariffs on any country that supplies it with fuel. Those policy stances form part of the backdrop to the cases now before the Court.
Beyond the specific legal doctrines at issue, the Supreme Court's decisions will clarify the practical barriers that claimants encounter when bringing Helms-Burton suits and determine the extent to which U.S. courts can entertain claims against foreign state-owned entities and private companies that do business with property once seized by the Cuban state. The rulings could either reinforce defenses that have blocked such suits or open the way for broader litigation under the statute.
Context and process
The Helms-Burton Act allows a path for U.S. nationals and entities to seek legal redress for properties nationalized by Cuba after 1959. The two cases now before the Supreme Court test both the availability of damages against state-linked Cuban businesses and the liability of private foreign firms that used facilities originally tied to confiscated U.S. property.
How the Court resolves issues such as foreign sovereign immunity and the viability of trafficking claims will determine immediate legal prospects for parties seeking compensation, and will clarify the statute's reach for companies and courts moving forward.