The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with Havana Docks Corp. in a long-running fight over property seized by Fidel Castro's regime after the Cuban Revolution, reviving claims that major cruise lines unlawfully used confiscated port facilities in Havana during the Obama-era opening with Cuba.
In an 8-1 decision, the justices ruled that Havana Docks, a U.S. company, did not have to prove it still would have held the same property interest when cruise ships used the Havana port decades after Cuba confiscated the docks.
The case now returns to the lower courts, where hundreds of millions of dollars in damages remain at stake. The ruling is a major win for Havana Docks and for plaintiffs seeking compensation under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, the 1996 law that allows U.S. nationals to sue companies accused of "trafficking" in property confiscated by Havana.
The provision was suspended for more than two decades by successive administrations before President Donald Trump allowed it to take effect in 2019. The dispute centered on cruise operations by Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line, and MSC Cruises, which docked in Havana between 2016 and 2019 as travel restrictions eased under former President Barack Obama.
Havana Docks argued that the companies benefited from facilities tied to a concession Cuba seized in 1960, after Castro's government nationalized U.S.-owned assets on the island. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had read the law too narrowly when it threw out Havana Docks' claims.
According to the Supreme Court's summary, the cruise lines' use of the docks was enough to establish use of "property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government." Havana Docks was not required to show that the cruise lines trafficked specifically in the company's later-expired property interest.
Justice Elena Kagan was the lone dissenter. Kagan argued Havana Docks no longer had a legal property interest during the period when the cruise lines used the port because its concession had expired in 2004.
The decision revives judgments that were worth about $440 million, after a federal district judge previously sided with Havana Docks before the appeals court overturned the awards. The Supreme Court did not end the case outright, leaving unresolved arguments for the appeals court to address.
The case carries significance beyond the cruise industry as it tests how far U.S. courts can go in enforcing claims tied to the sweeping confiscations that followed the Cuban Revolution, when Havana seized American-owned businesses, land and infrastructure without compensation.
Havana Docks had held rights to operate piers and terminal facilities at the Port of Havana under a concession originally granted by Cuba before the revolution. The ruling also comes as Helms-Burton litigation continues to shape U.S.-Cuba legal tensions.
ExxonMobil has brought a related Supreme Court case seeking compensation over oil and gas assets seized by Cuba in 1960, arguing that Cuban state-linked entities should not be shielded by sovereign immunity in Helms-Burton lawsuits.
