Overview
The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to tackle fundamental legal questions about the Helms-Burton Act, the 1996 federal statute that created a private cause of action for U.S. nationals seeking compensation for property seized by the Cuban government after the 1959 revolution. At issue is how powerful a remedy Congress intended Title III to provide and what procedural or substantive barriers should remain for plaintiffs bringing claims tied to assets nationalized decades ago.
What the court will hear
On the docket are two distinct appeals that together test the reach and mechanics of Title III. One involves oil major ExxonMobil seeking more than $1 billion in damages from CIMEX, a company owned by the Cuban state, for oil and gas assets taken in 1960. The other centers on a U.S. firm that owned Havana docks before the revolution and which is pursuing four cruise lines - Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line and MSC Cruises - after their ships used the company’s former terminal.
Title III in context
Title III allows U.S. nationals whose property was confiscated by the Cuban government to sue in U.S. courts those who "traffic" in that property. The provision offers enhanced damages for plaintiffs who can show that defendants knowingly used or benefited from confiscated assets, and it applies to both Cuban state-owned entities and private companies that have made use of the assets.
For decades Title III remained largely dormant because successive presidents exercised a statutory option to suspend its private cause of action on grounds of national interest and foreign policy. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all issued suspensions to avoid diplomatic friction with allies whose companies had investments in Cuba. That chain of suspensions ended when President Donald Trump lifted the restriction in 2019, prompting a wave of roughly 40 lawsuits that began to work their way through the courts in 2019 and 2020.
Facts at stake and the broader tally
The revolution’s nationalizations encompassed an array of U.S.-owned assets now described as worth billions of dollars. Those properties included factories, sugar mills, oil refineries and power plants. Title III was part of a broader congressional effort to codify and tighten the trade embargo against Cuba, which had previously been carried out through presidential orders.
The Trump administration framed the 2019 reactivation of Title III as a tool to increase pressure on Cuba, with the State Department asserting that the move would "ratchet up pressure on the Cuban government" and "penalize those who benefit from the rightful property of Americans." The administration also took other steps it described as part of a hard line toward Cuba, including moves targeting the flow of Venezuelan oil to the island.
ExxonMobil case: immunity and recovery hurdles
Exxon’s suit, filed in Washington in 2019, asks the Supreme Court to review and reverse an appeals court decision from 2024 that allowed Cuban state-owned enterprises to invoke foreign sovereign immunity as a defense to Helms-Burton claims. Foreign sovereign immunity is a doctrine that typically shields foreign governments and their agents from being sued in U.S. courts, and the lower court’s ruling has been cited as a significant barrier for claimants.
Exxon’s lawyers characterized the 2024 decision as imposing "yet another in a long line of barriers to recovery for victims of the Castro government’s illegal confiscations," in a 2024 court filing. CIMEX, for its part, has urged the high court to uphold the appeals court ruling, arguing that it "both respects and safeguards congressional judgment in this sensitive area."
Legal practitioners have said the combined effect of that 2024 decision and other rulings interpreting Helms-Burton has made it expensive and time-consuming for U.S. businesses to press claims against Cuban entities. Washington lawyer Jared Butcher, who represents clients in commercial litigation, described the resources necessary to pursue these claims as overwhelming for many would-be plaintiffs.
Cruise lines case: property interest and statutory requirements
The cruise-operator dispute raises different legal questions because it does not involve a state-owned defendant asserting sovereign-immunity protections. Instead, the litigants dispute whether a Helms-Burton claimant must prove that it would possess a present-day property interest in the assets at issue had they not been nationalized decades ago.
Havana Docks Corporation, a U.S. company that built and operated docks in Havana prior to the revolution, sued four cruise operators in federal court in Florida in 2019 after their ships used the terminal between 2016 and 2019, a period when travel restrictions to Cuba had been eased by the Obama administration. Castro revoked the company’s legal right to the docks shortly after the revolution.
The cruise operators jointly argued that it "defies common sense that they should pay hundreds of millions of dollars for following the executive branch’s lead in reopening travel to Cuba," in a shared court filing. A federal judge initially found the companies liable for a combined $440 million, determining they had trafficked in confiscated property, but an appeals court vacated those judgments last year, underscoring the difficulties that Helms-Burton claimants face in converting legal theories into enforceable recoveries.
Vanderbilt Law School professor Ingrid Brunk has observed that plaintiffs are having substantial difficulty securing recoveries under Helms-Burton for a variety of reasons, noting that it is "probably more difficult to recover than Congress had anticipated when it passed the act in 1996." She added, however, that such challenges do not mean every plaintiff should automatically prevail.
Legal and commercial implications
The Supreme Court’s rulings in these cases could either reinforce or remove several legal obstacles claimants encounter when they seek compensation under Title III. If the court narrows the defenses available to defendants - such as limiting the reach of sovereign immunity in the context of Title III claims - that could make recovery more feasible for U.S. nationals. Conversely, a decision that maintains or expands defenses could keep costs and procedural burdens high for litigants.
Because the disputed properties encompass assets across multiple sectors - including oil and gas, power generation, and maritime infrastructure - the court’s interpretation will be closely watched by industries with historical ties to Cuba. The litigation already involves substantial sums of money: Exxon’s claim exceeds $1 billion, while the cruise-line dispute previously produced a $440 million judgment that was later vacated on appeal.
What remains uncertain
Although the court’s review provides an occasion to clarify Title III’s scope, the exact contours of any new precedent will depend on the justices’ reading of both the statute and the broader doctrines implicated, such as foreign sovereign immunity and the statutory prerequisites for proving an actionable property interest. Until the Supreme Court issues decisions, plaintiffs and defendants will face ongoing litigation costs and strategic uncertainty.
Conclusion
The cases before the Supreme Court present a significant test of the Helms-Burton Act’s private right of action and of how U.S. courts should handle claims tied to Cold War-era nationalizations. The outcome could reshape the litigation landscape for dozens of cases now moving through the courts and affect commercial actors whose business operations have intersected with assets that were nationalized in Cuba.