US Supreme Court Rules Against Cruise Lines in Confiscated Cuban Property Lawsuit

[JohnS]

Charlie Minato at Halfwheel has again published a great and thorough article outlining this developing legal situation. (It's) Well worth your time to peruse it, in my opinion...

Supreme Court Rules Against Cruise Lines in Confiscated Cuban Property Lawsuit

May 21, 2026 - Charlie Minato

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an American-based port business that was once operating in Cuba, in its lawsuit against cruise ship operators who used the same ports for tourism purposes.

The lawsuit, Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al., was brought by Havana Docks, a company that had an agreement with the Cuban government to develop and operate docks at the Port of Havana. That agreement began in 1928 and was set to last 76 years, though it was upended in 1960 when Fidel Castro took over the country, seizing and nationalizing property, while also causing an exodus of those who fled his communist government.

In 1996, Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act, which contained Article III, a provision that would allow Americans whose property had been seized in Cuba to sue in U.S. courts for compensation. However, that provision was suspended by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama. In May 2019, during President Trump’s first term, the suspension expired, allowing for the first time, lawsuits like Havana Docks.

Havana Docks sued four cruise ship operators that used the port after Obama normalized relations with Cuba, which greatly increased American tourists to the island. In 2022, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of Havana Docks and ordered each cruise line to pay at least $110 million. The cruise lines appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit ruled in their favor, finding that the 76-year operating agreement came to an end in 2004, nullifying their claims.

That has been overturned.

Full Article: https://halfwheel.com/supreme-court-rules-havana-docks/471613/

[MrBirdman]

Thanks. This was expected since the conservative justices were always going to align with admin (and US) interests.

Interestingly, only Kagan dissented, and I can’t remember another case where she was alone in dissenting. It’s an odd case. Personally it’s rather ridiculous that this law was even passed so expansively that it enables recovery of a judgement after half a century against a non-party to the original suit, but here we are. 

[Dadof3]

If company A has a contract with nation state B and National state B breaches the contract awarding a later contract to company C wouldn’t the proper party defendant be nation state B? I guess you can argue that company C entered into the contract with knowledge that company A had a prior contract but I think the time to sue would have been way back when company C was awarded the contract or shortly afterwards in concert with some typical prescription or statute of limitations or even laches. It’s unfair for company A to sit back and wait for company C to invest and work the contract and then sue when there is a return on company C’s efforts. If the act giving some sort of remedy outside the ordinary stream of contract litigation is the issue then just be honest about it and stop with the legalese. It’s a political law and shoudn’t be draped with the precedent of standard contract law.  

[MrBirdman]

8 hours ago, Dadof3 said:

If company A has a contract with nation state B and National state B breaches the contract awarding a later contract to company C wouldn’t the proper party defendant be nation state B? I guess you can argue that company C entered into the contract with knowledge that company A had a prior contract but I think the time to sue would have been way back when company C was awarded the contract or shortly afterwards in concert with some typical prescription or statute of limitations or even laches. It’s unfair for company A to sit back and wait for company C to invest and work the contract and then sue when there is a return on company C’s efforts. If the act giving some sort of remedy outside the ordinary stream of contract litigation is the issue then just be honest about it and stop with the legalese. It’s a political law and shoudn’t be draped with the precedent of standard contract law.  

The law is nonsense, but that’s par for the course with US policy on Cuba. How many other plaintiffs will be suing cruise lines for stuff stolen over 50 years ago by a country the cruise line happened to dock at? Cuba’s debt is as contagious as hantavirus apparently. 

[Dadof3]

23 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

The law is nonsense, but that’s par for the course with US policy on Cuba. How many other plaintiffs will be suing cruise lines for stuff stolen over 50 years ago by a country the cruise line happened to dock at? Cuba’s debt is as contagious as hantavirus apparently. 

I understand that countries enforce policies and some of them have unintended consequences. But what I find insulting is when they are underhanded about it. Just be blunt and tell us this is what you are doing and why and how they are going to enforce it so everything is out in the open. Pretending it’s some sort of normal thing is insulting to everyone as I see it.