ExxonMobil has taken its decades-old property dispute with Cuba to the highest court in the United States. The American energy giant is demanding more than $1 billion in compensation for oil and gas assets that Cuba seized in 1960. Now, the legal fight has reached the Supreme Court of the United States, placing the justices at the center of a sensitive international dispute.
At the heart of the case lies a simple but powerful question. Can ExxonMobil sue Cuban state-owned companies in U.S. courts for property that Cuba confiscated after its revolution? The answer could affect not only ExxonMobil but also dozens of other claims tied to the same law.
Confiscated assets of ExxonMobil and the billion-dollar claim
In 1959, a revolution reshaped Cuba and brought Fidel Castro to power. Soon after taking control, the Cuban government seized foreign-owned businesses across the island. ExxonMobil’s oil refineries and related energy assets were among the properties taken in 1960.
At that time, the confiscated assets were valued at about $70 million. However, ExxonMobil now says the real loss is far greater. The company has added decades of accumulated interest and potential enhanced damages. As a result, ExxonMobil’s claim has grown to more than $1 billion.
In 2019, ExxonMobil filed a lawsuit against Corporación CIMEX, Cuba’s largest state-owned conglomerate. ExxonMobil argues that this entity continues to control and profit from the oil and gas property that the Cuban government seized decades ago.
However, a lower court blocked ExxonMobil’s path forward. The court ruled that Cuban state-owned companies can claim protection under foreign sovereign immunity. This legal doctrine shields foreign governments and their agencies from lawsuits in U.S. courts unless a specific exception applies.
ExxonMobil strongly disagrees with that interpretation. The company argues that Congress designed a special law to allow exactly these kinds of lawsuits. Therefore, ExxonMobil insists that sovereign immunity should not stand in the way.
The Helms-Burton Act and the fight over sovereign immunity
The dispute centers on a 1996 U.S. law known as the Helms-Burton Act. Congress passed this law to increase pressure on Cuba and to address property claims from Americans whose assets were confiscated after the revolution.
Title III of the Helms-Burton Act allows U.S. nationals to sue anyone who “traffics” in property seized by Cuba’s government. In simple terms, trafficking means using or benefiting from confiscated property without the original owner’s permission.
For years, U.S. presidents suspended Title III. They did so to avoid diplomatic conflicts with allies such as Canada and Spain, whose companies have business interests in Cuba. However, in 2019, during the first term of Donald Trump, the administration lifted that suspension. As a result, lawsuits under Title III moved forward for the first time.
What the law says about revoking Elon Musk’s naturalized US citizenship
Following that decision, around 40 lawsuits were filed in 2019 and 2020. ExxonMobil’s lawsuit became one of the most significant among them because of the size of its claim and the historical value of its assets.
ExxonMobil argues that the Helms-Burton Act clearly allows these lawsuits. According to ExxonMobil, if courts let Cuban state-owned entities rely on sovereign immunity, then the law would lose much of its force. The U.S. government supports ExxonMobil’s position and has urged the Supreme Court to remove what it views as improper legal barriers.
During oral arguments, some justices questioned whether Congress clearly intended to override sovereign immunity. They suggested that courts usually require very explicit language before stripping a foreign government of legal protections. The debate now focuses on how the Supreme Court interprets the wording and structure of the Helms-Burton Act.
Cruise lines, Havana docks, and parallel legal battles
At the same time, the Supreme Court is reviewing a second case involving the same law. This case concerns four cruise operators: Carnival Corporation & plc, Royal Caribbean Group, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, and MSC Cruises.
The lawsuit was filed by Havana Docks Corporation, a U.S. company that built and maintained docks at Havana’s port before Cuba seized them in 1960. Years later, when cruise travel to Cuba resumed, ships from these companies used the same port facilities.
Supreme Court ruling leads Trump administration to raise import tariffs amid refund claims
Havana Docks claimed that the cruise lines engaged in trafficking by using property that the Cuban government had confiscated. A federal judge initially agreed and ordered the cruise companies to pay a combined $440 million in damages.
However, a federal appeals court overturned that ruling. The appeals court found that Havana Docks’ concession rights would have expired in 2004. Because the cruise lines used the facilities long after that date, the court concluded that Havana Docks did not have a valid claim under the law.
Now, the Supreme Court must examine both disputes. On one hand, ExxonMobil seeks more than $1 billion for its seized oil and gas assets. On the other, Havana Docks challenges the cruise lines over port facilities taken more than six decades ago.
These cases arrive at a time of heightened tensions between the United States and Cuba. The U.S. government has labeled Cuba an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security. It has also cut off the flow of Venezuelan oil to the island and warned that countries supplying fuel to Cuba could face tariffs.
Despite this political backdrop, the Supreme Court’s role remains focused on legal interpretation. The justices must decide how far the Helms-Burton Act reaches and whether foreign sovereign immunity blocks these lawsuits.
The court is expected to rule in both cases by the end of June. Until then, ExxonMobil’s billion-dollar demand and the related cruise line dispute continue to shape one of the most closely watched legal battles involving U.S.-Cuban property claims.
