Supreme Court Hears First Cases Testing Cuban Seizures Law (1)

The US Supreme Court signaled skepticism that Congress meant to give leaseholders an unlimited right to sue over property seized decades ago by Cuba.

Two cases argued on Monday involving Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and Exxon Mobil Corp. test whether lawmakers intended to authorize private suits over property seizures by the Castro regime not merely as a way to recover damages, but also to pressure the government economically.

In the first argued case, Havana Docks Corp. is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from four cruise lines that used the Port of Havana from 2016 to 2019 after the Obama administration eased travel restrictions. The company held a 99-year lease to operate the port until 2004, but Cuba seized the property in 1960.

The suit was brought under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, a 1996 law that allows claims against companies that knowingly traffic in confiscated property. The case is the court’s first look at a claim under Title III, which had been suspended by every president until 2019, when Donald Trump allowed suits to proceed.

The disputes could serve as an key indicator of the future viability of Helms-Burton litigation.

A district judge ordered the cruise lines to pay damages to Havana Docks for using the port, but the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. It found the suit failed because the company’s lease would’ve expired anyway more than a decade prior had their been no seizure.

Richard Klingler of Ellis George, counsel for Havana Docks, argued Congress placed no statute of limitations on claims. The Trump administration echoed that view, contending the Helms-Burton Act was designed not merely to provide compensation, but to exert “harsh economic pressure” on the Cuban government.

Several justices across the ideological divide struggled with the scope of claims. They questioned whether the statute permits repeated recoveries potentially greatly exceeding the value of the original lease—particularly for alleged violations long after its expiration.

“I don’t know what entitles you to ad nauseam compensation for use by everyone, forever,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch similarly pressed counsel on whether the theory would allow damages “over and over and over again.”

Arguing Immunity

The second case found a warmer reception—at least among court conservatives.

The case, brought by Exxon Mobil, asks whether Congress lifted the typical sovereign immunity enjoyed by foreign state-owned businesses when it comes to suits involving Cuban seizures.

The energy giant is seeking tens of millions of dollars from Corporación CIMEX SA, a state-owned conglomerate in Cuba, for use of confiscated oil and gas assets. A federal district court declined to dismiss the suit. The DC Circuit reversed, directing further analysis of whether CIMEX is entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Morgan Ratner, a Sullivan & Cromwell partner representing Exxon, repeated the Trump administration’s view that Congress intended the Helms-Burton Act to impose “crushing diplomatic and economic pressure” on Cuba. That pressure, she argued, includes stripping state-owned enterprises such as CIMEX of immunity otherwise available under FSIA.

“It is implausible that Congress would have wanted a Cuban company to fare better than a private trafficker, given all of the other statutory signals,” Ratner said.

Court liberals questioned whether Congress clearly intended Helms-Burton to displace the FSIA’s baseline rule of sovereign immunity. Several conservatives appeared more receptive to Exxon’s reading.

Gorsuch pressed Jules Lobel of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, who argued for CIMEX, on why Congress would authorize the president to suspend Title III liability if lawmakers didn’t anticipate sovereign immunity concerns.

“Isn’t it kind of an acknowledgement we’re not doing the FSIA, we’re doing the old regime” where the State Department weighs in on whether suits involving foreign sovereignty issues should proceed? Gorsuch asked.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether Congress would’ve more explicitly said so if it intended to give the president the ability to waive sovereign immunity unilaterally.

“If Congress’ intention was to give the president a toggle switch as to sovereign immunity, wouldn’t we have expected to see that in the statute?” Jackson asked.

In its briefing, Exxon estimated that nearly 6,000 individuals and businesses could assert claims under the statute, representing potential losses in the billions of dollars.

The cases are Havana Docks Corp v. Royal Caribbean Cruises et al, U.S., No. 24-983 and Exxon Mobil Corp v. Corporación CIMEX S.A., U.S., No. 24-699, argued on 2/23/26.