What happened
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday revived Havana Docks Corp.'s Helms-Burton Act suits against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and three other cruise companies, holding that the companies' alleged use of confiscated Havana port facilities can support liability even though Havana Docks' concession would have expired years before the cruises at issue.
In an 8-1 merits ruling by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court said Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act generally reaches use of physical property confiscated by the Cuban government, not only the particular property interest the plaintiff held before confiscation. The Act, the majority said, covers use of "property tainted by a past confiscation" by those who traffic in property tied to a U.S. national's claim.
Havana Docks acquired a usufructuary concession in 1928 to develop and operate docks at the Port of Havana. The concession was scheduled to expire in 2004, but the Cuban government seized the docks and Havana Docks' assets in 1960 after Fidel Castro came to power. The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission later certified about $9 million in losses plus 6% annual interest, while the Title III right of action remained suspended until President Donald Trump allowed the suspension to expire in May 2019.
After that suspension ended, Havana Docks sued Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corp. and MSC Cruises over cruises to Cuba between 2016 and 2019. The district court entered summary judgment against the cruise lines and awarded Havana Docks more than $100 million from each, but a divided Eleventh Circuit reversed on the theory that the companies could not have trafficked in a concession that would have expired in 2004.
The Supreme Court rejected that counterfactual approach. The majority said Havana Docks had to prove only that the cruise lines used confiscated property, such as the docks, to which Havana Docks owns a claim, not that the cruise lines interfered with a property interest that would still have existed if Cuba had never confiscated it.
The ruling does not end the dispute. The Court sent the case back because the Eleventh Circuit had not reached the cruise lines' remaining arguments against liability, which the justices said were not before them.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurrence joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that Havana Docks' claim should fail because the cruise lines did not traffic in the company's time-limited concession after it had expired.