On June 23, 2026, the US Supreme Court decided Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, No. 24-699, holding that the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities. Thus, plaintiffs suing Cuban agencies and instrumentalities do not also need to satisfy one of the exceptions to sovereign immunity from the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA).
Exxon Mobil (then called Standard Oil) maintained a presence in Cuba in the early 20th century. After Fidel Castro came to power, the Cuban government confiscated many foreign-owned assets, including Exxon Mobil's. In 1996, Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act, which created a private right of action for any US national who "owns a claim" to "property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959." The Act also gives the US president the power to suspend suits against Cuban entities if such suspension is in the national interest. Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump exercised this authority from 1996 to 2019.
On May 2, 2019, President Trump ended the suspension. That same day, Exxon Mobil sued various Cuban companies under the Act (collectively, "the defendants"). The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Exxon Mobil had failed to satisfy one of FSIA's exceptions to sovereign immunity. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed.
The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit, holding that the Helms-Burton Act overrides FSIA and abrogates sovereign immunity for Cuban entities. The Court explained that "four points, taken together, lead to that conclusion": first, the Act's cause of action "expressly applies against Cuban agencies and instrumentalities"; second, the Act explicitly contemplated that the cause of action would "supply a meaningful remedy"; third, the Act provides that subject-matter jurisdiction for its cause of action lies under the federal-question statute, not FSIA; and fourth, the Act gives the president plenary power to suspend suits under the Act.
The Court then addressed and rejected the defendant's counterarguments. The canon of statutory interpretation against implied repeal does not apply here, because the Helms-Burton Act "contains many express indications that the Act is a standalone statutory exception to foreign sovereign immunity." Further, the Court's previous language characterizing the FSIA as the "sole basis" for abrogating foreign sovereign immunity does not control the outcome in this case. The Court also emphasized that Congress need not use "magic words" to abrogate sovereign immunity — the Helms-Burton Act's language was sufficiently clear. Finally, the Court rejected an argument that the final version of the Act does not waive sovereign immunity because a prior draft contained more explicit waiver language.
Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined in full. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.
