The Supreme Court of the United States delivered a significant ruling on May 21, 2026, in the case of Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Docket No. 24-983. The Court ruled that the cruise lines could be held liable for using docks in Cuba that were confiscated from the Havana Docks Corporation by the Cuban government in 1960. This decision has far-reaching implications for U.S. nationals seeking compensation for properties seized by foreign governments.

The case centers around the rights of Havana Docks, a U.S.-based corporation that had developed docks in Havana, Cuba, under a concession from the Cuban government. After the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the government seized these docks without compensation. For decades, Havana Docks sought justice for its losses, and the Supreme Court's ruling has reignited discussions about property rights and compensation for confiscated assets.

Background

Havana Docks Corporation was established in 1928 and operated docks at the Port of Havana under a usufructuary concession from the Cuban government. This concession allowed Havana Docks to develop and profit from the docks until it was set to expire in 2004. However, following Fidel Castro's rise to power, the Cuban government declared that it would take control of American-owned properties, including those of Havana Docks. In 1960, government forces seized the docks, effectively destroying Havana Docks' ability to operate and profit from them.

In the years following the seizure, Havana Docks filed a claim with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which certified approximately $9 million in losses. However, Havana Docks faced significant challenges in obtaining compensation. In 1996, Congress enacted the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which allowed U.S. nationals to file lawsuits against entities that trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government.

The law had remained dormant for many years due to successive presidential suspensions until President Trump allowed the right of action to take effect in May 2019. Following this change, Havana Docks filed lawsuits against four cruise lines—Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises—for using the confiscated docks between 2016 and 2019.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Havana Docks, stating that the cruise lines' use of the docks was sufficient to establish liability under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, emphasized that the Act makes anyone who “traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government” liable to any U.S. national who owns a claim to that property.

The court ruled, "Havana Docks has shown that the cruise lines used confiscated property in which Havana Docks had a property interest and to which it owns a claim."

The Court rejected the cruise lines' argument that they were not liable because Havana Docks' property interest would have expired in 2004, stating that the relevant property was the docks themselves, not just the concession. The ruling clarified that Havana Docks did not need to prove that the cruise lines interfered with a property interest that would have existed without the confiscation.

The Court found that the docks were indeed “property which was confiscated” because they were taken without compensation when the Cuban government seized control in 1960. The justices emphasized that the cruise lines knowingly and intentionally used the docks without authorization, thus engaging in trafficking under the Act.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for U.S. nationals with claims to properties confiscated by the Cuban government. It reinforces the ability of claimants to seek redress against entities that profit from the use of confiscated properties. The decision also sets a precedent for how courts interpret the definition of “trafficking” under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.

The ruling may encourage other claimants to pursue legal action against companies that utilize confiscated properties, potentially leading to increased litigation in U.S. courts. This case also highlights the ongoing complexities surrounding U.S.-Cuba relations and the legal ramifications of property rights in international contexts.

What's Next

Following this ruling, it is unclear whether the cruise lines will seek further appeal. The case has been remanded to the lower court for consideration of other arguments raised by the cruise lines that were not addressed by the Supreme Court. The outcome of this case may influence other pending cases involving U.S. nationals and confiscated properties in Cuba.