Related videos:
The Supreme Court of the United States is holding a high-stakes hearing this Monday that could redefine the scope of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act and, depending on the outcome, open the issue of claims for confiscated properties by the Castro regime after 1959.
The judges will hear arguments in two landmark lawsuits: Exxon Mobil vs. Corporación CIMEX and Havana Docks Corp. vs. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., the latter also against Norwegian Cruise Line, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises.
In both cases, at stake is the interpretation of a legal provision that allows U.S. citizens and companies to sue those who "traffic" in properties that were nationalized without compensation in Cuba.
Although the cases present legal differences, they share a fundamental issue: how far Congress intended to go when it approved the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, which codified the embargo and created a mechanism for claiming compensation in federal courts.
Exxon against the Cuban military conglomerate
In the case of Exxon, the oil company claims over 1 billion dollars for assets confiscated in 1960, including refineries and terminals that are now linked to CIMEX, a state-owned company integrated into GAESA, the business-military structure under the control of the Cuban regime's leadership.
The central debate revolves around whether CIMEX can invoke the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to avoid being sued in the United States. A lower court ruled in 2024 that Cuban state-owned enterprises can claim that immunity.
However, Exxon argues that Title III was specifically designed to overcome that obstacle and allow victims of confiscations to access justice.
If the Supreme Court reverses that interpretation, it would eliminate one of the main barriers that have hindered claims against Cuban state entities for years.
Cruises Under the Microscope
The second case does not involve sovereign immunity, as the defendants are private companies. Here, the discussion focuses on whether Havana Docks Corporation retains a valid right over the concession of the port of Havana, despite it being revoked following Fidel Castro's rise to power.
Between 2016 and 2019, during the thaw promoted by the Obama administration, thousands of American tourists arrived in Cuba on cruises that used that terminal.
In 2022, a federal judge ruled that shipping companies had "trafficked" in confiscated property and ordered them to pay 440 million dollars. However, in 2024, an appeals court overturned the decision, determining that the concession had expired before the operations took place.
Now, the Supreme Court must determine whether the right to sue depends on the formal validity of the concession or on the fact that the property was confiscated without compensation. In this case, the answer could also have far-reaching consequences.
A precedent with a domino effect
Title III remained suspended from 1996 until 2019, when the Trump administration fully activated the provision, arguing that it was a tool to increase pressure on the Cuban regime and penalize those who benefited from expropriated property.
Since then, around 40 lawsuits have been filed, many of which are progressing slowly due to procedural obstacles. Legal experts have noted that litigating under the Helms-Burton has proven to be costly and complex for the plaintiffs.
However, if the Supreme Court chooses a broad interpretation of Title III, the scenario could change drastically. Thousands of claims certified for confiscations —which include sugar mills, refineries, factories, ports, and land— could be reactivated with renewed judicial momentum.
For international companies, the message would be clear: operating in Cuba, even years after the events, can lead to million-dollar liabilities in U.S. courts.
For the Cuban regime, which is facing a terminal economic crisis, an adverse ruling could increase financial pressure and further discourage foreign investment.
Beyond the technical details, today’s hearing marks a turning point in the long-standing dispute over the properties confiscated after the revolution.
The decision, expected in the coming months, will not only impact large corporations but could also redefine the actual scope of one of the most controversial legal tools in U.S. policy toward Cuba.
If the Court opens the door to a broader interpretation of Title III, the can of claims could be definitively opened.
Filed under: