WASHINGTON, HAVANA – The Supreme Court of the United States has delivered a major legal setback to the Cuban government and companies accused of benefiting from property confiscated after the Cuban Revolution, reviving multimillion-dollar claims tied to assets seized by Fidel Castro’s regime more than six decades ago.
In an 8-1 ruling issued Thursday, the court sided with Havana Docks Corporation, a U.S. company whose Havana port facilities were confiscated after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959.
The decision reinstates lawsuits against four major cruise operators — Carnival Corporation, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Royal Caribbean Cruises and MSC Cruises — accused of unlawfully using confiscated docks in Havana between 2016 and 2019 during the temporary thaw in U.S.-Cuba relations under former President Barack Obama.
The case is based on Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, a controversial 1996 U.S. law allowing American citizens and companies to sue entities that “traffic” in property confiscated by the Cuban government after January 1, 1959.
For decades, enforcement of that section of the law was suspended by successive U.S. presidents due to diplomatic concerns. That changed in 2019 when the Trump administration activated Title III, opening the door to a wave of lawsuits linked to properties nationalized during the Cuban Revolution.
The Supreme Court’s ruling now significantly strengthens those claims.
The court rejected an earlier appeals court ruling that argued Havana Docks no longer held valid rights because its original concession would have expired in 2004. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that the lower court had incorrectly interpreted the law.
Legal analysts say the decision could trigger broader litigation involving billions of dollars in historical expropriation claims tied to Cuba’s communist government.
Another major case currently before the Supreme Court involves ExxonMobil, which is seeking more than $1 billion in compensation for oil assets confiscated in Cuba in 1960.
The ruling comes at a particularly sensitive moment for Cuba, which is facing severe economic problems, fuel shortages, declining oil supplies, inflation and growing international pressure.
Claims circulating on social media that “the United States never forgets old debts” and could use these legal claims against Cuba “as it did with Venezuela” are partially opinion-based and cannot be fully verified as official U.S. policy.
However, it is true that Washington has increasingly used sanctions, court actions and financial pressure mechanisms against both Cuba and Venezuela in recent years. The revival of Helms-Burton lawsuits is widely viewed as part of a broader strategy of economic and legal pressure against Havana.
Experts note that the Supreme Court ruling does not automatically mean Cuba itself will immediately pay damages. Many cases still face complex legal and diplomatic hurdles, especially involving sovereign immunity and enforcement against foreign state-linked assets.
Still, the decision represents one of the strongest legal blows in years against Cuba’s long-standing unresolved expropriation disputes dating back to the Castro era.
For Havana, the issue is no longer only historical or political. It is increasingly becoming financial, judicial and international.