The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear two significant legal cases that could expand the reach of American law into foreign affairs, particularly concerning Cuba. These cases, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. and Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., involve corporate efforts to claim compensation for properties nationalized decades ago during Cuba’s revolutionary period. The rulings may set legal precedents allowing private entities to pursue financial recovery in connection with regime change scenarios.
One lawsuit stems from ExxonMobil’s claim over oil infrastructure seized in 1960 by the Cuban government. The company argues it is entitled to damages for assets once held by its subsidiary, Esso Standard Oil, in Panama. However, under the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, foreign governments generally cannot be sued in U.S. courts unless specific exceptions apply. A lower court previously ruled that Exxon did not meet those criteria. Now, the company is urging the Supreme Court to interpret Title III of the Helms-Burton Act as overriding sovereign immunity for Cuban state entities—a move critics say would undermine long-standing international legal norms.
The second case involves Havana Docks Corporation, which is seeking $439 million from major cruise operators including Carnival and Royal Caribbean. The claim is based on a concession granted in 1904 to build a pier in Havana, which expired in 2004. Despite the lease’s termination and its original restriction to cargo operations, the company asserts that its rights were violated when cruise lines used the port facilities between 2016 and 2019, following a temporary easing of travel restrictions under President Obama.
Legal experts note that the concession was always subject to public interest and state authority, and that no exclusive or perpetual ownership was ever granted. Ambar Diaz, a legal analyst who submitted a report for the cruise industry, emphasized that Cuban law treats ports as public assets, with citizens having a fundamental right to access waterfront areas for embarkation and disembarkation.
Behind the Havana Docks litigation is Mickael Behn, heir to the former International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation empire. His family’s historical ties to authoritarian regimes and influence in U.S.-Cuba policy circles have drawn scrutiny. Behn, along with Cuban-American investor Javier Garcia-Bengochea, played a key role in lobbying the Trump administration to activate Title III of the Helms-Burton Act in 2019. Their campaign included media outreach in Miami and high-level meetings with officials such as Senator Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor John Bolton.
The activation of Title III enabled dozens of lawsuits against firms doing business in Cuba, though few have resulted in enforceable judgments due to the lack of accessible Cuban assets in the U.S. Still, the symbolic and political weight of these legal actions remains substantial. The Trump administration has consistently framed these cases as part of a broader foreign policy aimed at pressuring the Cuban government through economic isolation.
Critics argue that the Helms-Burton Act serves more as a tool for political retaliation than genuine restitution. Robert Muse, a lawyer specializing in Cuba-related legal issues, described the statute as “truly bizarre,” noting it fails to deliver compensation while creating diplomatic friction and legal uncertainty for international businesses.
The cruise industry has warned that accepting Havana Docks’ argument—that an expired, non-exclusive public concession constitutes expropriated property—could open companies to retroactive liability and discourage future normalization efforts between the U.S. and Cuba. They stress that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision was narrowly based on factual expiration and does not warrant Supreme Court intervention.
With the Biden administration having maintained the Title III provisions, the stage is set for a pivotal judicial review. If the Court sides with the plaintiffs, it could embolden similar claims elsewhere and further entrench legal mechanisms designed to economically isolate Cuba—regardless of whether actual enforcement is feasible.
— news from Truthout
— News Original —
The US Supreme Court Is Quietly Aiding an Economic War on Cuba
As President Donald Trump gestures towards regime change in Cuba, the U.S. Supreme Court, with Trump’s urging, has agreed to hear lawsuits that could help corporate interests recoup hundreds of millions of dollars in long-expropriated Cuban assets if the United States seizes control of the nation. n nOne of those lawsuits involves an oil giant claiming damages from Cuban companies for decades-old revolutionary asset seizures. The other, which one of the plaintiffs calls the most important Supreme Court case on Cuba “in the past sixty years,” involves the scion of a fascist-friendly corporate empire who’s taken credit for Trump’s hardline stance on Cuba and is seeking compensation for a 122-year-old expired pier contract. n nTogether, they build on long-dormant anti-Cuban foreign policy weaponized by Trump and push the court to extend U.S. law beyond its borders to retroactively punish a foreign revolution — and deliver the spoils to profiteers. n n“The Supreme Court is doing about seventy cases a year,” Robert Muse, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who has long focused on Cuban legal matters, told The Lever. “The fact that it would devote two places on the docket to litigation arising under a statute that’s only produced about 50 cases in total — and where there’s no circuit split — is extraordinary.” n nOver the past year, the Trump administration has ratcheted up tactics to deliver regime change in Cuba, which has weathered a comprehensive trade embargo for six decades and has been trapped in fuel, energy, medicine, and foreign exchange crises since the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. n nThen, within hours of U.S. troops extracting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, Donald Trump asserted that “Cuba is ready to fall” because Cuba gets “all of their income” from Venezuelan oil. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a prominent Cuban-American politician, soon echoed the warning, telling the Cuban government that it “should be concerned.” The following week, Trump doubled down on his threats, warning the Cuban government to “make a deal before it’s too late.” n nAmid this backdrop, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. and Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. on Feb. 23. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the corporate plaintiffs, it could create new avenues for private actors to capitalize on regime change in the country — and further boost the vulture capitalism that is already driving U.S. policy in Latin America. n nAcross the region, corporate interests have been turning political crises into legal clout. Hedge funds have for years prolonged austerity measures in Puerto Rico by pressuring the U.S. territory’s government to pay distressed debts in full. More recently, energy companies positioned themselves to profit from Trump’s Venezuelan regime change. n nCodifying Retaliation n nAfter former Cuban President Fidel Castro’s anti-imperialist Cuban Revolution deposed U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959, U.S.-Cuba relations quickly deteriorated. The following year, Castro authorized Law 851, allowing the Cuban government to expropriate U.S.-owned or controlled property. n nThen, in 1962, the U.S. imposed a full trade embargo on Cuba, following Deputy Assistant Secretary Lester Mallory’s recommendation three years earlier to deny “money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation, and overthrow of the government.” n nIn 1996, Congress hardened the embargo by passing the Helms-Burton Act, which extended the ban beyond U.S. borders. By threatening legal action against both U.S. and non-U.S. firms for conducting business in Cuba, the Helms-Burton Act explicitly sought to expedite the collapse of the Cuban government by discouraging foreign business investment in Cuba. n nOne section of the Helms-Burton Act, Title III, created a private right of action that allowed “U.S. nationals” to file suit against any U.S. or foreign entity that “traffics” in property expropriated by the Cuban government. Both the drafters of the Helms-Burton Act and Cuban-American hardliners have argued that Title III is necessary because it provides a means for Cuban-Americans to receive compensation for property that the Cuban government has seized and profits from. n nHowever, the Cuban government has already settled many revolution-era debts without the threat of legal action. It has negotiated settlements for nationalized properties with Canada, Great Britain, France, Spain, and Switzerland. The Cuban government originally agreed to compensate U.S. property owners via proceeds from its longstanding U.S. sugar export deal, but the matter was left at an impasse after the U.S. ended the trade arrangement in 1961. n nShortly after former President Bill Clinton signed the Helms-Burton Act, the European Union threatened to challenge the law before the World Trade Organization because it would allow the U.S. to regulate non-U.S. companies operating elsewhere. Clinton agreed to suspend Title III of the law for six months, and the EU dropped its case. For more than 20 years, every president since has suspended Title III in six-month terms, recognizing that its activation would strain its diplomatic relations with allies. n nThat restraint ended during Donald Trump’s first term when the administration activated Title III in April 2019. The move opened the floodgates for longstanding grievances to become lawsuits. Roughly 40 suits were filed in the first two years of Title III’s activation against Cuban, American, and European companies — but so far, most have had little effect. n n“Title III has been operative for six years” Muse explained, “and nobody has received a judgment.” Many of the lawsuits have been dismissed on procedural issues, and most early judgments and the only jury verdict award in favor of plaintiffs have been overturned. n nBut now, two of those lawsuits have reached the Supreme Court. n nExxon and the Assault on Sovereign Immunity n nOne of those cases was filed by ExxonMobil against two Cuban state corporations: Union CubaPetroleo (CUPET) and Corporación CIMEX. Exxon Mobil argues that the companies are liable for the losses incurred by Cuba’s 1960 revolutionary expropriation of its service stations and oil refineries, which were at the time owned by the oil giant’s Panamanian subsidiary, Esso Standard Oil. n nThe 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act — as well as international law — agrees that one nation cannot be sued in the courts of another. So, for a plaintiff to proceed with a civil suit against a foreign state under the Helms-Burton Act, it would need to qualify for an exception to the law. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined that Exxon did not satisfy the criteria to qualify for any such exception. n nExxon then petitioned the Supreme Court to do something far more radical: strip Cuban government entities of their sovereignty altogether by arguing that Title III of the Helms-Burton Act does away with foreign sovereign immunity. n nLast August, the Trump administration filed an amicus brief in the case agreeing that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act imposes undue burdens on plaintiffs and that Title III of the Helms-Burton Act alone should suffice. Sovereign immunity, in the eyes of Trump’s Solicitor General, appears to be an inconvenience standing in the way of retribution. n nIn its brief, the government insisted that it has “compelling” and “paramount” foreign policy interests in ensuring that U.S. nationals receive compensation, citing a January 2025 Trump memo titled “Restoring a Tough U.S.-Cuba Policy.” What it does not explain, though, is how the courts would enforce any resulting judgments against the Cuban companies involved — unless there is a regime change. n n“You’ve got your Helms-Burton judgment — where are you going to execute it?” said Muse. “There are no Cuban assets in the United States to execute on.” n nHavana Docks and the Fiction of Stolen Property n nThe same day that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Exxon case, it also agreed to hear Havana Docks Corporation’s lawsuit against four U.S.-based cruise lines. n nThe Kentucky-based company seeks $439 million from cruise ship operators Carnival, Royal Caribbean, MSC Cruises, and Norwegian for alleged damages incurred between 2016 and 2019, when President Barack Obama removed Cuba from a list of countries deemed to have inadequate port security to allow for U.S.-based cruises to stop there. Havana Docks argues that it holds a longstanding claim to a concession for a long-nationalized terminal and piers used by cruise operators during that time for passenger loading and unloading. n nIn 1904, Cuban President Tomás Estrada Palma granted Compañia del Puerto, a predecessor to Havana Docks Corporation, a public works concession to build a pier on the state-owned San Francisco Wharf in Havana. According to Decree 467, the concession was explicitly for public purposes and only for cargo loading and unloading; despite Havana Dock’s current claims, Compañia del Puerto was never authorized to offer passenger services on the pier. The initial term of the lease was for 50 years beginning in 1905; the lease was later extended to 99 years, with an expiration date of 2004. n nThe Cuban Law of Ports made clear that ports are public property and that the public has a “fundamental right to the use of the littoral sea,” which includes the specific right to embark and disembark passengers. According to legal expert Ambar Diaz, in a report created for the Supreme Court at the request of the cruise lines, Havana Docks’ rights were always contingent on state ownership, public rights, and a non-exclusive concession — meaning that the company’s lease could at any time have been terminated, including through expropriation, if the state determined that public needs required it. n nHavana Docks is adamant, though, that its expired lease still qualifies as property that was expropriated by the Cuban government. n nBehind Havana Docks Corporation’s litigation stands an extensive lobbying campaign by Mickael Behn, a London-based heir to International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. The company became a global telecommunications empire by the 1930s under Sosthenes Behn, who leveraged connections and cozied up to officials from the Franco and Hitler regimes, and paid Cuban officials under Batista. In 1917, Sosthenes formed Havana Docks Corporation and acquired the concession from Compañia del Puerto to operate cargo loading and unloading on the Havana piers. n nNow Mickael, Sosthenes’ grandson, along with his two cousins in France, holds a majority of Havana Docks’ shares. A small group of shareholders, including Warren Buffett, owns the rest. Behn joined forces with Javier Garcia-Bengochea, a Cuban-American who claims to own more than 82 percent of commercial waterfront property that was used by cruise operators following Obama’s legalization of Cuban travel. Only 32.5 percent of Garcia-Bengochea’s interest was certified by the International Claims Settlement Act — the remaining 50 percent stake was never certified. n nIn 2018, Behn and fellow Title III claimant Javier Garcia-Bengochea began to run a public smear campaign to discourage American tourists from taking cruises to Cuba, placing billboards across Miami and running radio ads to link the Cuban military with U.S.-based cruise operators. Behn and his associates effectively ran the ad campaign with the help of the Miami-based Cuban Democratic Directorate, a nongovernmental organization that received more than $3 million in U.S. federal grants to “promote freedom of information” in Cuba. n nBehn and Garcia-Bengochea indirectly lobbied the first Trump administration in 2018 to activate Title III of the Helms-Burton Act with the help of former U.S. diplomat Otto Reich (famous for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal), former National Security Advisor John Bolton, and D.C.-based lobbying firm Cormac Group. The lobbying firm scheduled “$10k coffees” for Behn and Garcia-Bengochea with then-Sen. Rubio and then-Gov. Rick Scott to request that Trump enforces Titles III and IV of the Helms-Burton Act. n nOn April 17, 2019, the Trump administration announced the activation of Title III. Less than two months later, the administration halted cruises to Cuba and ended the “people-to-people” visa category that allowed American citizens to visit Cuba as tourists. n nBehn and Garcia-Bengochea have openly credited their lobbying efforts to the successful implementation of Title III and the following restrictive U.S. travel policy to Cuba. n n“We were able to muster our resources and bring them together and ultimately connect with the Trump administration to get Title III enacted,” Garcia-Bengochea told the Miami New Times in 2023. “Everybody who has sued [under Title III] owes us. We did this for them, and they know it.” n nSince 2000, Garcia-Bengochea has donated $25,400 to Marco Rubio’s political coffers and $18,600 to Florida Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart. Díaz-Balart, a Republican, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Havana Docks in March 2025, arguing that U.S. foreign policy is to “bring democratic institutions to Cuba” by cutting off “hard currency, oil, and productive investment and expertise.” n nIn their own Supreme Court brief on the issue, the cruise lines and related industry groups warned that accepting Havana Docks’ theory that expired, non-exclusive, public-purpose concessions can be converted to indefinite property claims. They argue that this would expose companies to potentially massive retroactive liability and would chill any future normalization policy between the U.S. and Cuba. n n“The sum-total of the Eleventh Circuit’s holding is that [Havana Docks Corporation]’s time-limited interest expired before 2016,” the cruise lines noted. “That narrow, factbound conclusion is not the stuff of certiorari, let alone of diplomatic crises.” n nAn Imperial Court in Waiting n nThe Trump administration’s foreign policy goals, which align with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s lifelong vendettas against leftist governments in Latin America, particularly Venezuela and Cuba, have worked in tandem to drive the Title III lawsuits to the Supreme Court’s docket. n nIn both the Exxon and Havana Docks cases, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contends that an immediate review of the Helms-Burton Act’s meaning and scope as a “priority for U.S. foreign policy.” n nWhile this is the first time a Helms-Burton Act Title III lawsuit has ever reached the Supreme Court, the Trump administration has interpreted the 1996 law squarely as it was intended — to curtail foreign investment in Cuba because it “undermines the foreign policy of the United States.” That foreign policy is to bring about regime change in Cuba. n nIt is with good reason that the Cuban hardliner community can expect the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of these lawsuits. In the first year of its second administration, Trump’s Solicitor General has been masterful at identifying lower court decisions that the Supreme Court would likely reverse or stay in Trump’s favor; last year, the Trump administration lost only five of 26 cases on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. n n“History teaches us that the courts are exceptionally deferential to the executive branch in the area of foreign relations,” said Muse. “If the U.S. government tells the court there’s a national security interest, the court is not going to examine the basis for that claim.” n nSince 1996, the primary goal of the Helms-Burton Act has been to scare U.S. investors away from Cuba in order to choke any supply of U.S. dollars to the island. n n“Helms-Burton is a truly bizarre statute,” says Robert Muse. “It doesn’t advance national security, it doesn’t compensate anyone, and it produces judgments with nowhere to enforce them.” n nToday, however, there is a very real possibility that legal action could be taken against U.S. companies — in this case, cruise lines — to satisfy Trump’s regime-change ambitions and the avarice of corporate vultures.