The Supreme Court of the United States ruled this Tuesday that Exxon Mobil may continue its lawsuit against Cuban state companies to seek compensation for assets confiscated by Fidel Castro's revolutionary government over six decades ago, as reported by the agency AP.
This is a decision that strengthens the reach of the Helms-Burton Act and could pave the way for new multimillion-dollar claims related to the nationalizations that took place after 1959.
In a vote of six judges to three, the court overturned a lower court decision that had ruled that Cuban state entities were protected by sovereign immunity and therefore could not be sued in U.S. courts.
The case revolves around properties that belonged to subsidiaries of Standard Oil, the predecessor of Exxon Mobil, including over a hundred service stations and an oil refinery that were nationalized by the Cuban government in 1960.
The oil company claims that state-owned enterprises such as the CIMEX Corporation and the Cuba-Petroleum Union (CUPET) continue to benefit from those assets without having compensated their original owners.
The debate on sovereign immunity
The legal dispute centers on the interpretation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996.
This regulation allows U.S. citizens and companies to sue individuals or entities that benefit from properties confiscated by the Cuban government.
What the Supreme Court had to determine was whether that law removes the protection normally granted by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to foreign governments and their state-owned enterprises.
The conservative majority responded affirmatively.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the author of the majority opinion, argued that it would "make little sense" for Congress to authorize the President of the United States to allow lawsuits against Cuban interests while simultaneously maintaining the immunity that would prevent those claims from being made.
The motion was rejected by the three liberal justices of the court.
In her dissenting vote, Justice Elena Kagan argued that the 1996 legislation does not contain any explicit provision that removes Cuba's sovereign immunity or that of its state entities.
According to Kagan, the interpretation adopted by the majority expands the scope of the law beyond what Congress originally established.
A claim exceeding one billion dollars
The decision represents a significant victory for Exxon Mobil, which has been engaged in a legal offensive since 2019 to recover the value of the expropriated assets.
The U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission determined in 1969 that the losses suffered by Exxon amounted to 71.6 million dollars.
With the interest accumulated over more than six decades, the figure currently exceeds 1 billion dollars, as Kavanaugh highlighted in his opinion.
The Exxon case is part of a much broader universe of claims.
The same commission certified nearly 6,000 claims from U.S. citizens and companies, amounting to approximately 1.9 billion dollars before interest and other compensations.
Trump's backing of the judicial offensive
The controversy had gained political relevance since the beginning of the year. In January 2026, the administration of Donald Trump formally backed Exxon before the Supreme Court through a filing submitted by the Department of Justice.
The court even authorized the federal government to share argument time with the oil company during the hearing of the case, a sign of the political interest that the litigation has sparked.
The U.S. government argued that sovereign immunity imposed "undue burdens" on the plaintiffs and maintained that the Helms-Burton Act should be sufficient to allow the claims.
The Attorney General justified the stance as a matter of "vital interests" in foreign policy, aligned with the strategy of hardening the approach toward Cuba championed by Trump since his return to the White House.
The Helms-Burton Law returns to the center of the conflict
Congress approved the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, following Cuba's shooting down of two civilian aircraft piloted by Cuban exiles based in Miami.
Its controversial Title III allows Americans to sue companies or individuals that benefit from properties confiscated by the Cuban government following the Revolution.
For more than two decades, both Republican and Democratic presidents systematically suspended the enforcement of that provision due to objections from U.S. allies with investments in Cuba and concerns that it would hinder potential negotiations with Havana.
The situation changed in 2019 when Trump lifted the suspension and allowed lawsuits to start progressing in U.S. courts.
A precedent impactful for hundreds of claims
Tuesday's decision comes just a month after the Supreme Court issued another ruling in favor of American claimants.
In May, the court reinstated the lawsuit by Havana Docks Corporation against several cruise companies —Carnival, Norwegian, Royal Caribbean, and MSC Cruises— for using port facilities in Havana that were confiscated by the Cuban government.
Both cases are considered essential for defining the actual scope of the Helms-Burton Act and could facilitate new legal actions related to properties nationalized during the early years of the Revolution.
Although some specialists warn that a potential judicial victory does not guarantee the actual collection of compensation, due to the scarcity of Cuban assets in U.S. territory, the ruling significantly strengthens the position of thousands of claimants seeking compensation for properties confiscated more than six decades ago.
Beyond its economic implications, the decision adds a new tool of pressure on Havana at a time of renewed tensions between Washington and the Cuban government, and reinforces the Trump administration's strategy of using the Helms-Burton Act as a mechanism to increase the economic and political costs of the Cuban regime.
Filed under: