Supreme Court to rule on suing Cuba for seized property

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Oct. 3, 2025, to hear two cases involving American companies seeking compensation for property confiscated by Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba after the 1959 revolution. Oral arguments are expected in spring 2026, with rulings by Jun. 2026. Both cases concern the scope of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act (Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act), passed by Congress in 1996. The cases have potentially billions of dollars at stake for U.S. companies and could open the floodgates to thousands of additional claims. Lower courts have been divided on what constitutes "trafficking" in seized property.

The Helms-Burton Act, formally the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996, includes a provision (Title III) enabling U.S. nationals to file lawsuits in federal court against anyone who "traffics" in property confiscated by the Cuban government after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959. "Trafficking" includes using, benefiting from, or profiting from seized property. Congress authorized these lawsuits to pressure companies doing business with Cuba and to provide compensation to Americans whose property was taken without compensation. The law was a response to Cuba shooting down two U.S. civilian planes in 1996, killing four pilots.

Every president from Clinton through Obama suspended Title III enforcement using a waiver authority in the law, citing concerns about flooding U.S. courts with claims and antagonizing European and Canadian allies whose companies do business in Cuba. President Trump lifted the suspension on May 2, 2019, allowing lawsuits for the first time in 23 years. Exxon Mobil filed its lawsuit the same day. Trump's decision was part of a broader policy of rolling back Obama-era normalization with Cuba and increasing economic pressure on the Cuban government. The Biden administration didn't re-suspend Title III but also didn't aggressively advocate for expansive interpretations.

The first case involves Exxon Mobil seeking $280 million from two Cuban state-owned companies, Corporación CIMEX and Union Cuba-Petróleo (CUPET), which took over Exxon's operations. By the late 1950s, Standard Oil Company (later Exxon Mobil) had extensive operations in Cuba, including a refinery, multiple product terminals, and 117 service stations, all seized by the Castro government in 1960. Exxon argues the Cuban companies are "trafficking" in its expropriated property by operating the refineries and stations. Lower courts have been divided on what constitutes "trafficking." Some courts say merely using seized property isn't enough—companies must commercially exploit it for profit.

The second case involves Havana Docks Corporation seeking to reinstate a $440 million award against the world's biggest cruise lines: Carnival Corporation, MSC Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line, and Royal Caribbean. Havana Docks built and operated the piers at Havana's port, which were seized in 1960. Between 2015 and 2019, these cruise lines disembarked nearly 1 million tourists on the docks. Havana Docks argues the cruise lines trafficked in its confiscated property by using the docks. A federal jury awarded Havana Docks $440 million, but an appeals court overturned it, narrowing the definition of "trafficking." The appeals court said cruise lines merely "used" the docks but didn't "traffic" in them because they didn't own or control them.

Trump's Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to take these cases and wants the justices to rule it should be easier for the lawsuits to proceed. The Trump administration argued that lower courts have interpreted "trafficking" too narrowly, making it too hard for property owners to win claims. Trump's DOJ brief in 2025 argued the Helms-Burton Act should be read broadly to compensate victims and deter companies from doing business with Cuba. The Biden administration didn't re-suspend Title III but also didn't aggressively push for expansive readings. Trump's second-term DOJ is pushing harder for claimant-friendly interpretations. This could dramatically expand liability for companies doing business in or with Cuba.

If the Supreme Court rules broadly in favor of claimants, it could open the door to thousands of additional lawsuits. The U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission certified about 5,900 claims by U.S. nationals for property seized by Cuba, totaling roughly $8 billion in today's dollars (adjusted for interest). Only a fraction have filed lawsuits so far. European and Canadian companies doing business in Cuba—including hotels, telecoms, and importers—could face massive liability. Cuba has no assets in the U.S. to satisfy judgments, so claimants target third-party companies that use or benefit from the seized property. A broad ruling could chill foreign investment in Cuba and complicate U.S. relations with allies.