The Supreme Court has decided to take on several cases, including those involving Exxon and major cruise lines, which could potentially allow them to claim compensation for properties taken by Cuba’s Castro government.
This type of lawsuit was made possible nearly thirty years ago by Congress, although each subsequent president has suspended it until it allowed President Trump to initiate the case during his first term.
Now, in his second term, a judge has asked for the Trump administration’s viewpoint on whether two cases presented to the High Court should be eligible for review. The Justice Department under Trump is advocating for this and aims to clarify that pursuing the lawsuit should be more straightforward.
One of the companies seeking redress stated in their petition to the Supreme Court, “This is the most significant case regarding U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba reaching this court in six decades.”
The court is set to hear the cases in the upcoming session, with a ruling anticipated by next summer.
Exxon is suing Cuban state-owned entities, while a company that constructed a jetty in Havana’s port is trying to recover $440 million previously awarded to some of the largest cruise lines in the world.
The case raises important legal questions, specifically concerning the Helms-Burton Act, enacted in 1996 to bolster the U.S. embargo against Cuba. This law followed the Cuban Air Force’s downing of two unarmed civilian aircraft.
It permits American citizens to file lawsuits against individuals who “traffic” in properties taken by the Cuban government since Fidel Castro’s rise to power in 1959.
In this instance, Exxon is suing CIMEX and Unión Cuba Petróleo, the latter having confiscated Exxon’s oil refinery and over 100 service stations, leading to a total loss of about $71.6 million as identified by the U.S. Commission.
Exxon is appealing to have the case reconsidered after a lower court ruled it could only proceed under a different federal law that provides broad legal immunity in U.S. courts. Exxon contends that specific provisions within the Helms-Burton Act should take precedence.
The Justice Department has supported Exxon’s position, arguing that this misinterpretation hampers private lawsuits aimed at holding Cuban agencies and the government accountable for its illegal seizures.
State-owned enterprises have cautioned the courts about the implications of this legal interpretation and have urged the lawsuit to be dismissed.
The Supreme Court is reviewing this alongside cases against major cruise lines.
Havana Dock Colport, which owns a long-term right to operate the jetty at Havana Port, is seeking compensation following the Castro regime’s takeover, which hindered their operations.
Between 2015 and 2019, the company facilitated nearly a million tourists, garnering substantial revenue from these visitors, but claims that while they paid Cuba, they haven’t received compensation from Havana Dock. They are now suing Carnival, MSC Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line, and Royal Caribbean.
A lower court ordered the cruise lines to pay $440 million to Havana Dock. The Supreme Court will deliberate on the appeals panel’s decision to overturn this ruling, given that the rights to operate the dock lapsed in 2004, before the voyages in question occurred.
Havana Dock has warned that this could hinder legal claims permitted by Congress, while the cruise lines have dismissed the lawsuit as overly exaggerated and unworthy of attention from the courts.
They contend that the lower court rightly addressed the narrow issue related to decades-old property under the influence of Cuban law, suggesting that the matter is more straightforward than it appears.
