Related videos:
The United States Supreme Court held a high-impact hearing on Monday regarding two lawsuits related to properties confiscated by Fidel Castro's regime in 1960, marking the first time the highest court has reviewed litigation associated with Title III of the Helms-Burton Act.
During several hours -the hearings extended beyond what was planned due to the onslaught of questions from the magistrates- the judges heard the arguments in the cases Havana Docks Corporation vs. Royal Caribbean Cruises and Exxon Mobil vs. Corporación CIMEX, two lawsuits that could redefine the scope of the law approved in 1996 and fully activated in 2019.
It was not clear which way the court is leaning, noted this Tuesday El Nuevo Herald.
However, the intensity of the interrogation reflected the legal and political significance of what is at stake: whether the Helms-Burton Act allows overcoming procedural hurdles that have so far limited claims, or if, on the contrary, its application should be interpreted restrictively.
The government of Donald Trump openly supported both lawsuits and allowed representatives of the Attorney General to intervene before the Court.
The State Department emphasized the significance of the moment.
“Today, the Supreme Court of the United States is considering lawsuits filed by American citizens whose properties were confiscated by the Cuban regime,” noted the Office of Western Hemisphere Affairs on X.
In a document sent to the Supreme Court, the Administration stated: “The U.S. has significant foreign policy interests in promoting democracy in Cuba, fostering accountability for the government's unlawful confiscations through lawsuits under Title III, and supporting compensation for American victims of illegal expropriations from the Castro era.”
The decision, expected before the end of June, could have a domino effect on dozens - or even hundreds - of similar lawsuits.
The Havana Docks Case: Cruises Under Scrutiny
The first case pits Havana Docks Corporation, the former dock concessionaire at the Port of Havana, against four major cruise lines: Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line, Carnival, and MSC.
The company claims that the shipping companies "trafficked" in confiscated property by using the cruise terminal between 2016 and 2019, during the thaw promoted by the administration of Barack Obama.
In 2022, a federal judge in Miami ruled in favor of Havana Docks and ordered the companies to pay more than 400 million dollars.
However, in 2024, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, stating that the original concession had expired in 2004, before the cruises operated in the island.
The key issue now being studied by the Supreme Court is whether the right to sue depends on whether the plaintiff had a vested interest at the time of the alleged "trafficking," or if it is sufficient that the property was confiscated without compensation in 1960.
Joseph Malouf, a constitutional lawyer consulted by Telemundo 51, summarized the dilemma: “They did not necessarily have to operate in 2016 because they would not have been under that contract, which is why there is no guarantee that they can recover those damages.”
During the hearing, the lawyers for Havana Docks argued that the shipping companies acted in coordination with the Cuban state and that they paid approximately 130 million dollars to entities linked to the security forces to operate the terminal.
From the federal government's representation, a broader principle was emphasized: "A stolen property remains stolen until the claim is resolved, the property is returned, or adequate compensation is paid."
For its part, the defense of the cruise lines argued that Cuba was the effective owner of the docks and that what was confiscated at the time was only a temporary interest that was no longer valid.
Exxon vs. CIMEX: Sovereign Immunity at the Heart of the Debate
The second case could have even deeper implications.
Exxon Mobil claims more than 1 billion dollars for oil assets confiscated in 1960, including refineries and over a hundred gas stations that today would be linked to CIMEX and CUPET, Cuban state entities.
Here the debate revolves around the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which typically protects states and state entities from being sued in U.S. courts.
A lower court ruled in 2024 that Cuban state-owned companies could invoke that immunity.
Exxon, however, maintains that Title III of the Helms-Burton was specifically designed to create an exception to that protection and allow victims of confiscations to access the courts.
If the Supreme Court concludes that the Helms-Burton Act takes precedence over the FSIA in this context, it would remove one of the main obstacles that have hindered lawsuits against Cuban state entities for years.
A controversial law that had been frozen for decades
The Helms-Burton Act, officially known as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, was enacted in 1996.
However, Title III -which allows lawsuits against those who “traffic” in confiscated property- was suspended by all presidents until Donald Trump decided to fully activate it in 2019.
Since then, around 45 to 50 lawsuits have been filed in federal courts, according to various estimates. Litigating under this regulation has proven to be complex and costly.
Nicolás Gutiérrez, president of the National Association of Landowners of Cuba, explained that “since May 2019, there have been nearly 50 lawsuits under this title; these lawsuits are complex, they are costly, we have managed to have two of these lawsuits win at the district level, then they lost at the second level of appeal, and now they have requested, and the Supreme Court of the United States has granted them a hearing.”
The law imposes strict requirements: the claimant must have been a U.S. citizen at the time of enactment in 1996, the property must have significant value and pertain to commercial assets (or residential properties used for commercial purposes), and it must be demonstrated that a business is currently benefiting from that property in association with the Cuban state.
Until 2024, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the Department of Justice had certified nearly 6,000 claims for confiscations in Cuba, with an approximate value of 2 billion dollars, not including accrued interest or potential treble damages provided by law.
A recent precedent was the ruling against Expedia in Miami, where a jury ordered the payment of $29.8 million to the descendants of the original landowners in Cayo Coco.
Is the door opening to a flood of lawsuits?
Beyond the technicalities, the question looming over the process is whether the Supreme Court will choose a broad interpretation of Title III.
A favorable ruling for Havana Docks and Exxon could:
-Weaken the shield of sovereign immunity for Cuban state-owned enterprises.
-Expand the concept of "trafficking" of confiscated goods.
-Encourage new demands related to ports, hotels, refineries, sugar mills, and other assets nationalized after 1959.
For international companies, the message would be clear: operating in Cuba could entail million-dollar legal risks in U.S. courts.
For the Cuban regime, which is experiencing a deep economic crisis and facing increased energy and trade restrictions, an unfavorable decision would add financial pressure and could further discourage foreign investment.
The Supreme Court has until the summer to issue its ruling.
What is decided will not only resolve two emblematic lawsuits: it could define the true scope of one of the most controversial legal tools in U.S. policy toward Cuba and determine whether the "melon" of claims for confiscated property remains definitively open.
Filed under: