5 articles · Updated · The New York Times · May 21
An 8-1 Supreme Court ruling let Havana Docks pursue claims against cruise lines that used its Havana waterfront property after Cuba seized it in 1960.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that companies using property “tainted by a past confiscation” can be liable to a U.S. national that owns a claim to that property.
The Trump administration backed the suit, arguing compensation claims authorized by Congress in the 1990s are a foreign-policy tool to deter investment in Cuba.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, saying Havana Docks’ interest had expired before the cruise lines used the docks and that the property belonged to the Cuban government.
The decision could encourage similar suits by U.S. companies and individuals, though its broader reach remains unclear as the court still has not ruled on a related Exxon Mobil case.
Will the upcoming Exxon Mobil case let Americans sue foreign governments for seized assets?
Could billions in new lawsuits finally resolve the decades-old U.S.-Cuba property dispute?
Supreme Court Upholds $440 Million Judgment in Havana Docks Case: Landmark Ruling Opens Floodgates for Cuban Property Claims Under Helms-Burton Act
Overview
On May 21, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark 8-1 ruling that upheld $440 million in judgments against major cruise lines for using Havana port facilities confiscated from Havana Docks Corporation after the 1959 Cuban Revolution. This decision, which followed arguments heard in February 2026, found the cruise companies liable and set a strong precedent for similar claims under the Helms-Burton Act. The Court’s ruling not only impacts these cruise lines but also opens the door for other lawsuits, including ExxonMobil’s case seeking compensation for assets seized by the Cuban government.