Cuba’s economic situation continues to deteriorate, with its government assets in the U.S. largely inaccessible due to freezing. However, a new development offers U.S. companies a chance to reclaim what was lost decades ago. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on June 23, 2026, gives American corporations the right to pursue compensation from the Cuban government for assets seized over 60 years ago.
In the case of Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, the court ruled in favor of Exxon, allowing the oil giant to sue Cuban entities that have been operating facilities seized from Standard Oil in 1960. This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battle over expropriated properties.
Helms-Burton Act’s Role
This ruling follows another decision from the 2025-2026 term concerning U.S. property rights in Cuba. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 usually protects foreign governments from lawsuits in U.S. courts, but two cases were allowed to proceed due to the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known as the Helms-Burton Act. This law was enacted after the Cuban government shot down civilian planes, resulting in the deaths of three U.S. citizens and one permanent resident.
The Helms-Burton Act stipulates that resolving property claims is a prerequisite for re-establishing full relations between the U.S. and Cuba. This act permitted lawsuits over assets seized by the Cuban government, a provision activated by President Donald Trump in 2019. The Supreme Court’s recent rulings have now addressed the validity of these claims.
Implications for Cruise Lines
On May 21, 2026, the court ruled 8-1 that cruise lines that docked at Havana’s ports could be liable under Helms-Burton, as they were using property confiscated from an American docks company. This decision, alongside the Exxon ruling, underscores the court’s stance on property rights related to Cuban expropriation.
Adalberto Roque/AFP via Getty Images
Historical Context and Legal Challenges
Standard Oil had a significant presence in Cuba with refineries, terminals, and service stations before Fidel Castro’s rise to power in 1959. The Cuban government’s expropriation of these assets in 1960 led to their transfer to Cuban state-owned companies. A U.S. commission in 1969 confirmed Exxon’s losses at over $70 million, a figure that has grown to over $1 billion today due to interest and damages allowed by Helms-Burton.
The case centered on whether Cuban state-owned companies could be sued in the U.S. The Supreme Court agreed with Exxon that Helms-Burton stripped these entities of immunity, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
Magdalena Chodownik/Anadolu via Getty Images
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The court’s majority based its decision on four key points: Helms-Burton’s explicit allowance for lawsuits against foreign entities, the need to avoid rendering the act ineffective, the separate jurisdictional path for Helms-Burton cases, and the presidential authority to enable or block suits.
AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Elena Kagan, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that Helms-Burton did not clearly waive immunity. They pointed out that Congress’s omission of an explicit waiver indicated no intention to allow such suits.
Kagan also highlighted the practical difficulties plaintiffs might face when seeking to enforce judgments, as protections for foreign state assets could still apply. The ruling is significant for the nearly 6,000 U.S. claimants with certified claims against Cuba, valued at $1.9 billion in the 1960s.
The decisions in both Exxon v. Cimex and Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean open avenues for claims against both Cuban state-owned entities and private companies benefiting from seized properties. Despite Cuba’s financial struggles, these rulings may influence future negotiations regarding U.S.-Cuba relations.
