Supreme Court Decides Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al.

On May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al., No. 24-983, holding that Havana Docks had stated a claim under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act by showing that the defendant cruise lines used property confiscated by the Cuban government to which Havana Docks owned a claim.

In 1928, the United States company Havana Docks acquired a property interest called a “usufructuary concession,” which allowed it to develop and operate dock facilities at the state-owned Port of Havana in Cuba. After acquiring this usufructuary concession, Havana Docks built docks at the port. The property interest was to last until 2004. The Cuban Government agreed that if it “expropriated” the docks before that date, it would compensate Havana Docks for the value of all works Havana Docks had constructed. In the wake of the Communist Revolution, in 1960 the Cuban Government seized the docks without compensation. Havana Docks then filed a claim with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which Congress had authorized to quantify rights expropriated by the Cuban Government. The Commission confirmed Havana Docks’ concession and construction of the docks and that the Cuban Government had expropriated and occupied the docks. 

In 1996, Congress enacted the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Under Title III of that Act, any entity that “traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property.” “Trafficking” was defined to include knowingly and intentionally selling, purchasing, or using the confiscated property. 

From 2016 to 2019, the defendants, who are various cruise companies, transported nearly a million paid passengers to Cuba and used the docks in question, even after receiving notice of Havana Docks’ certified claims to the docks. Havana Docks sued under the Act. The district court entered summary judgment against all four cruise lines. A divided Eleventh Circuit panel reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s decision.

The controlling issue was whether Havana Docks had to show that the defendants trafficked its property interest or only the property itself. The Supreme Court held that the defendants’ use of the docks — the property itself — was sufficient to establish a violation of Title III. Though the defendants claimed that there could be no violation of Title III because Havana Docks’ property interest would have expired in 2004, a plain reading of the statute confirmed that “property which was confiscated” can be the physical property in which a claimant had an interest, not just the interest itself. Regardless of whether Havana Docks’ property interest was set to expire, the defendants would not have trafficked the concession, but rather the docks themselves. And the Court reasoned that requiring a claimant to show a present property interest was incorrect because no Title III claimant has a present property interest, because the Cuban Government expropriated it. The Court also rejected the defendants’ claim that the Cuban Government only confiscated the concession, not the docks themselves, as the Commission certified that the Cuban Government seized control of and occupied the docks. 

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.