Related videos:
The United States Supreme Court ruled this Tuesday that Exxon Mobil can continue its lawsuit against Cuban state-owned companies to seek compensation for assets confiscated by Fidel Castro's revolutionary government over six decades ago, as reported by the AP.
This is a decision that strengthens the scope of the Helms-Burton Act and could open the door to new million-dollar claims related to the nationalizations that occurred after 1959.
In a vote of six judges to three, the court overturned a decision made by a lower court 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 gas stations and a petroleum 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 compensating their original owners.
The debate on sovereign immunity
The legal dispute centers on the interpretation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996.
This regulation allows U.S. citizens and companies to sue individuals or entities that derive benefits from properties confiscated by the Cuban government.
What the Supreme Court had to determine was whether that law removes the protection typically granted by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to foreign governments and their state-owned enterprises.
The conservative majority responded affirmatively.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, 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 such claims from being filed.
The position was rejected by the three liberal judges of the court.
In her dissenting opinion, Judge Elena Kagan argued that the 1996 legislation does not contain any explicit provision that removes the sovereign immunity of Cuba or its state entities.
According to Kagan, the interpretation adopted by the majority extends the scope of the law beyond what Congress originally established.
A claim that exceeds one billion dollars
The decision represents a significant victory for Exxon Mobil, which has been engaged in legal action since 2019 to recover the value of its expropriated assets.
The United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission determined in 1969 that the losses incurred by Exxon amounted to 71.6 million dollars.
With the interests accumulated over more than six decades, the amount would currently exceed 1 billion dollars, Kavanaugh highlighted in his opinion.
The case of Exxon 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 support for the legal offensive
The controversy had gained political relevance since the beginning of the year. In January 2026, the Trump administration formally supported Exxon before the Supreme Court through a brief submitted by the Department of Justice.
The court even authorized the federal government to share its argument time with the oil company during the hearing of the case, signaling 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 for the claims.
The Attorney General justified the stance as a matter of "paramount interests" in foreign policy, aligned with the strategy of tightening the policy towards Cuba promoted by Trump since his return to the White House.
The Helms-Burton Act 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 who profit from properties confiscated by the Cuban government following the Revolution.
For over two decades, Republican and Democratic presidents systematically suspended the enforcement of that provision due to objections from U.S. allies with investments in Cuba and fears that it would hinder potential negotiations with Havana.
The situation changed in 2019 when Trump lifted the moratorium and allowed lawsuits to begin progressing in U.S. courts.
A precedent with impact for hundreds of claims
The decision made this Tuesday 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 seized by the Cuban government.
Both cases are considered fundamental to defining the real 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 experts warn that a potential court victory does not guarantee the effective 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 restitution for property confiscated more than sixty years 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 cost of the Cuban regime.
Filed under: