High Court to Hear Suit Against Cruise Lines Over Cuba Port (1)

The US Supreme Court will consider whether some of the largest cruise lines in the world owe hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for using the port of Havana after the Obama administration relaxed rules on traveling to Cuba.

The justices on Friday said they will consider a case brought against Carnival Corp., Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd., Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., and MSC Cruises SA CO. A company that previously held a lease to operate the port—which was seized by the Castro regime 65 years ago —is seeking to hold the cruise lines liable for using docks after the seizure in violation of a federal law.

The appeal puts the justices in the middle of the debate over US-Cuba relations and the use of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act. The 1996 law created a private right of action in federal courts for U.S. nationals who own a claim to property confiscated by the Cuban government. Every presidential administration since the law’s enactment has suspended Title III until the Trump administration, which allowed these kinds of lawsuits as a way to put economic pressure on the Cuban government.

The high court will consider whether Havana Docks Corp. had a cognizable property interest in the docks under federal law at the time the facilities were used by the cruise lines.

HDC signed a 99-year, non-renewable lease in 1905 to operate the Port of Havana. But the Cuban government seized the facilities in 1960. The company sought damages from four cruise lines that used the port from 2016 to 2019.

In a brief by the US solicitor general that was invited by the Supreme Court, the government said that review should be granted to promote President Donald Trump’s agenda against the current Cuban government. Title III was adopted to encourage private lawsuits against the Cuban regime and those who profit from trafficking in property illegally expropriated from Americans, it said.

Debate Over Docks

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court ruling requiring the cruise lines to pay for their use of the harbor under Title III. The lease that the company held already expired by the time the Obama administration loosened restrictions on travel to Cuba in 2016, the Eleventh Circuit said.

HDC sued the cruise lines under Title III, invoking the provision that allows U.S. nationals who own a claim to property confiscated by the Cuban government to recover against those who “traffic” in that property—knowingly use in commerce the confiscated property without the claimant’s authorization, HDC said.

A federal district court in Florida ruled that the cruise lines committed trafficking acts under Title III by carrying passengers to the port facilities, and awarded HDC over $100 million against each cruise line. The Eleventh Circuit reversed.

The Eleventh Circuit misapplied Title III and inserted itself into US foreign policy, HDC said in its petition for review to the Supreme Court. The plain language of the statute directs courts to focus on a plaintiff’s claim to property confiscated by the Cuban government, and that claim “reflects the plaintiff’s property interest as it existed when extinguished by the confiscation,” it said. The Eleventh Circuit offered no textual support for holding otherwise, it said.

All the Cuban government confiscated from HDC was its “limited right” to use the docks, the cruise lines said in their response brief. “And because that time-limited interest expired on its own terms in 2004, any use of the docks after 2004 is not ‘traffic[king] in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government,’” they said.

Private lawsuits under Title III promote US foreign policy by, among other things, preventing private actors from collaborating with the Cuban regime and depriving it of funds that undermine the US’ longstanding embargo of Cuba, the government brief said. It also increases economic pressure to achieve democratic reforms in Cuba.

The US said that the Eleventh Circuit holding “imposed an atextual precondition for suits” under Title III by “requiring that plaintiffs with claims involving time-limited interests show that they would have had a present interest at the time of trafficking.” The test bars suits involving “time-limited claims that Congress explicitly recognized as confiscated ‘property,’” the solicitor general’s brief said.

Ellis George LLP represented HDC. Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Clement & Murphy PLLC, Venable LLP, Quinn Emanuel Urquharta & Sullivan LLP, and Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP represented the cruise lines.

The case is Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., U.S., No. 24-983, petition for certiorari granted 10/3/25.