Supreme Court Rules on Havana Docks Case
On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered an 8-1 decision in favor of Havana Docks Corporation. This ruling leaves major cruise lines liable for hefty fines, totaling millions, for utilizing ports in Cuba without compensating the American owners of those docks.
The case arose after a district court determined that Royal Caribbean Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises owed $110 million each for transporting over a million paid passengers to Cuba. This decision was eventually overturned by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit before the matter reached the Supreme Court in February, as noted in the opinion slip.
The court’s syllabus explained that Havana Docks Corporation, based in the U.S., had legally acquired the Port of Havana in 1928 from the Cuban government. However, it was seized by Fidel Castro’s regime in 1959, long before the contract between Cuba and Havana Docks was set to expire in 2004.
As a result of this breach, Havana Docks successfully claimed approximately $9 million in losses, certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, with an annual interest rate of 6%.
In 1996, Congress enacted the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which provided a private right of action for U.S. citizens whose property was seized by the Cuban Government after January 1, 1959. It also positioned liability on entities that knowingly trafficked in such property.
Notably, this act granted the president the power to temporarily suspend its provisions—a move that all presidents exercised until President Donald Trump’s first term, when this suspension lapsed in 2019.
During the Obama administration, relations with Cuba had eased, resulting in multiple cruise lines using the seized ports while only compensating the Cuban government, not the corporation itself.
Havana Docks argued that this situation violated the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act and sought compensation. The majority of the Supreme Court, with Justice Clarence Thomas authoring the opinion, sided with Havana Docks.
Justice Thomas contended that the Eleventh Circuit was mistaken in suggesting the cruise lines’ actions wouldn’t have disturbed Havana Docks’ property interests if there had been no confiscation. He maintained that the docks were indeed compromised due to prior confiscation and were therefore liable to any U.S. national with a claim.
The lone dissenter, Justice Elena Kagan, expressed that while the ruling might appear reasonable at first glance, the property didn’t belong to Havana Docks during the docking of the cruise lines. She argued that the docks remained the property of the Cuban government, not Havana Docks, which had a limited property interest that expired in 2004—well before the cruise lines utilized the docks.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the majority but pointed out that Havana Docks might have grounds to pursue additional compensation beyond the $110 million from each cruise line involved.
