The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to wade into one of the thorniest chapters of Cold War history, agreeing to hear two cases that could reshape how American companies and citizens seek justice for property seized by foreign governments. At the heart of these cases are Exxon Mobil and Havana Docks Corporation, both seeking compensation for assets expropriated by Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba more than six decades ago—a saga that now stands to influence U.S. foreign policy, corporate interests, and the legal boundaries of international claims.
By the late 1950s, Standard Oil Company—later known as Exxon Mobil—had built a formidable presence in Cuba, operating a refinery, multiple terminals, and 117 gas stations. But the winds of revolution swept through the island in 1959, and the new communist government under Fidel Castro confiscated all of Standard Oil's Cuban assets, folding them into two state-owned enterprises. According to CNN, an American commission in 1969 certified Standard Oil's losses at nearly $72 million. Exxon argues that, with interest and possible treble damages, the total could balloon into the billions. As The Hill notes, nearly 6,000 individuals and companies have filed claims totaling more than $1.9 billion, all certified by the relevant U.S. authorities.
For decades, these claims gathered dust. Congress had created a pathway for lawsuits in 1996 with the passage of the Helms-Burton Act, which strengthened the U.S. embargo against Cuba and allowed U.S. nationals to sue anyone "trafficking" in property confiscated after 1959. However, the law included a presidential waiver, and every president—until Donald Trump—chose to suspend the provision, citing national interest. That changed on May 2, 2019, when President Trump lifted the suspension, opening the door for cases like Exxon's to proceed. Exxon filed its lawsuit the same day, and now, after years of legal wrangling, the Supreme Court is set to decide whether U.S. companies can indeed hold foreign state-owned enterprises accountable in American courts.
"The United States has compelling foreign-policy interests in ensuring that U.S. nationals whose assets were illegally expropriated by Fidel Castro’s communist regime receive recompense and in preventing the Cuban government from further benefiting from its wrongdoing," the Department of Justice stated in a filing, as reported by CNN. Exxon, for its part, contends that the Helms-Burton Act should trump the general rules that grant foreign governments broad immunity in U.S. courts. The company warns that a failure to act would "stymie important foreign-policy interests in holding the Cuban government accountable for continuing to benefit from its illegal expropriations," as The Hill highlighted.
The Cuban state-owned companies at the center of the lawsuit—CIMEX and UnionCuba Petroleo—have pushed back, cautioning the Supreme Court that Exxon's approach could have global consequences. "The Court has repeatedly warned of the fallacies and perils of this approach to statutory interpretation," their legal team argued, according to The Hill. They also maintain that most plaintiffs would face a "slim to non-existent chance" of ever recovering damages, given the complexities of international law and Cuban resistance to U.S. judgments.
Running parallel to Exxon's claim is the case of Havana Docks Corporation, a company that built piers in Havana in 1905 under a 99-year port-use agreement. When Castro's government seized the docks and other private property after the revolution, Havana Docks lost its lifeline. Yet, as CNN and The Hill report, major cruise lines—including Carnival, MSC Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line, and Royal Caribbean—continued to use the confiscated docks from 2015 to 2019, disembarking nearly one million tourists and paying Cuba at least $130 million in hard currency. Havana Docks asserts it received nothing, nor did any unaffiliated Cuban owners.
"The Cuban government never paid any compensation for the confiscated properties," Jeffrey Wall, a lawyer for Havana Docks, told the justices in his appeal, as cited by CNN. A lower court had initially ordered the cruise lines to pay Havana Docks $440 million. However, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, noting that Havana Docks' 99-year rights had expired in 2004—before the cruise ships began their Havana voyages. The cruise lines argue the case is "factbound" and turns on the "particular metes and bounds of a century-old property interest governed by the vagaries of Cuban law," according to court filings reported by The Hill.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear these cases marks a pivotal moment not only for the claimants but for U.S.-Cuba relations and the broader question of how American courts handle claims against foreign sovereigns. As The Hill observed, these are "the most important cases involving U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba to reach this Court in the past sixty years." The litigation also reflects the shifting tides in Washington's approach to Cuba: while the Obama administration sought to thaw relations, the Trump administration reversed course, enabling these lawsuits to move forward. Now, with the justices set to weigh in, the legal and diplomatic stakes are higher than ever.
The cases also highlight the tangled intersection of congressional intent, executive power, and judicial interpretation. The Helms-Burton Act was passed in the wake of a 1996 incident when Cuban fighter jets shot down two unarmed civilian planes, prompting Congress to strengthen the embargo and give U.S. citizens a legal avenue for redress. Yet, as The Hill and CNN detail, the law’s implementation has been anything but straightforward, with courts struggling to reconcile it with longstanding doctrines of foreign sovereign immunity. Exxon and Havana Docks both argue that the specific provisions of Helms-Burton should override general immunity laws, but lower courts have been divided, and the Supreme Court is now tasked with resolving the conflict.
On the other side, representatives of Cuba and the cruise lines warn that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could set a precedent with far-reaching implications, potentially exposing U.S. companies to retaliatory lawsuits abroad and complicating international relations. "That issue is as factbound as it gets," the cruise lines wrote, urging the justices to steer clear of what they see as a narrow, technical dispute.
For the thousands of American claimants who have waited decades for restitution, the stakes could hardly be higher. As Exxon’s appeal puts it, "Like the thousands of other victims of the Castro regime, Exxon has been waiting since the early 1960s to receive compensation." The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments during its upcoming term, with decisions anticipated by June 2026.
As the justices prepare to consider these landmark cases, the outcome could redraw the legal map for interstate financial claims and set the tone for future U.S.-Cuba economic and legal relations—a legacy that will reverberate far beyond the courtroom.