The U.S. Supreme Court handed a significant victory to American companies on Thursday, making it easier for those whose property was confiscated by Cuba‘s Communist government to seek financial compensation decades later.
The ruling, decided 8-1, revived a series of nine-figure judgments that an American firm called Havana Docks Corporation had won against four of the world’s largest cruise ship operators. A lower court had previously thrown those judgments out. The Supreme Court put them back on the table and sent the case back down for further proceedings.
What Is This Case Actually About?
The story behind the lawsuit goes back nearly a century. Havana Docks Corporation began operating facilities at the Port of Havana in 1928 under a long-term agreement that gave the company the right to run those docks all the way through 2004.
That arrangement came to an abrupt end in 1960, when Cuba’s newly installed Communist government seized control of the docks without paying the company a single dollar in compensation.
“At that point, the docks were tainted as confiscated property,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.
Decades passed. Then, between 2016 and 2019, four major cruise companies obtained permission from the Cuban government to use those same docks for international cruises. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corporation and MSC Cruises collectively transported nearly one million passengers through Cuba during that period, as per a report from the Wall Street Journal.
Havana Docks argued that by doing business on property that had been illegally taken from them, the cruise companies were profiting from stolen goods. The company sued each of the four operators and won judgments of $110 million against each of them, adding up to roughly $440 million in total.
The Law Behind the Ruling
The legal foundation for the lawsuit is a federal law called the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, passed by Congress in 1996. The timing of that legislation is significant. It was enacted the same year that Cuba shot down American civilian aircraft over international waters, the same incident that formed the basis for this week’s federal murder indictment against former Cuban President Raúl Castro.
The 1996 law specifically allows owners of property confiscated by Cuba to pursue steep financial damages against anyone who later uses or benefits from that property. However, for more than two decades, the law was effectively dormant. Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama all used a provision in the legislation that allowed them to suspend its enforcement, each citing foreign policy considerations.
That changed when Trump took office for the first time. He allowed the suspension to expire, opening the door to lawsuits like the one Havana Docks brought against the cruise companies.
Where the Trump Administration Stands
The current administration backed Havana Docks before the Supreme Court, arguing that allowing these kinds of lawsuits serves a clear foreign policy purpose by piling economic pressure onto the Cuban government.
That position fits squarely within the broader strategy the Trump administration has been pursuing against Cuba in recent weeks, which has included a tight oil blockade, the Castro indictment and the deployment of a naval carrier strike group to the Caribbean.
The One Dissenting Voice
The decision was not unanimous. Justice Elena Kagan was the sole dissenter, arguing that the majority read the 1996 law too broadly.
Her reasoning centered on timing. Havana Docks’ original agreement with Cuba would have expired naturally in 2004, twelve years before the cruise companies even began using the docks. Kagan argued that the company should not be allowed to claim damages for use of property that it would no longer have had any legal interest in by the time the alleged violations occurred.
The dissent carries a notable historical footnote. According to a database of Supreme Court decisions maintained by Washington University in St. Louis, this was the first time in Kagan’s sixteen years on the court that she found herself as the only justice voting against the majority.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court did not issue a final ruling on the money itself. It reinstated the judgments and sent the case back to the lower courts, meaning the cruise companies still have legal avenues to challenge the outcome before any payments are made.
But the direction of travel is now clear. American companies with claims over property seized during Cuba’s Communist revolution have a significantly easier legal road ahead of them than they did before Thursday’s ruling. In a week that has already seen a federal indictment of a former Cuban president and a US carrier group arrive in the Caribbean, the Supreme Court’s decision adds yet another layer to what is fast becoming one of the most consequential confrontations between Washington and Havana in decades.