The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Thursday against four major cruise lines that sought to escape a judgment worth hundreds of millions of dollars for using docks at the Port of Havana, property seized decades ago by Fidel Castro's regime. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, reinstating a $400 million judgment and affirming that the Helms-Burton Act means what it says.
Carnival, MSC, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian all operated voyages to Havana between 2016 and 2019. They docked at port facilities that once belonged to Havana Docks, a company that held a 99-year legal right to operate the Port of Havana before the Castro regime confiscated it during the Cuban Revolution.
That confiscation, and the question of who profits from stolen property, sat at the heart of the case. The ruling, reported by The Hill, sends a clear message: American law still holds that those who benefit from property taken by a communist dictatorship can be made to pay.
Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act in 1996 to strengthen the U.S. embargo against Cuba. The law allows Americans to seek damages against anyone who "traffics in" property seized by Castro's regime. Its passage was spurred by the shooting down of two unarmed civilian planes, an act of violence that galvanized bipartisan support for tighter restrictions on Havana.
Havana Docks invoked the law and sued the four cruise lines for using the confiscated port facilities. A lower court initially awarded Havana Docks $440 million, but an appeals court wiped that sum. The Supreme Court's decision now reinstates a $400 million judgment, though it leaves the door open for the companies to advance alternate arguments as the dispute returns to a lower court.
Justice Thomas framed the majority's reasoning in plain terms.
"The Act generally makes those who use property tainted by a past confiscation liable to any United States national who owns a claim to that property."
Eight justices agreed. Only Justice Elena Kagan dissented. Her objection centered on a narrow timing argument, that Havana Docks' property interest had already expired before the cruise lines ever showed up.
"What Havana Docks owned was only a property interest allowing it to use those docks for a specified time. And that time-limited interest expired in 2004, more than a decade before the cruise lines ever used the docks."
The majority was unmoved. Thomas wrote simply: "We disagree."
The ruling lands at a moment when U.S. policy toward Cuba is tightening on multiple fronts. The day after the Supreme Court decision, the Justice Department unsealed an indictment charging Raúl Castro, Fidel's brother and successor as Cuba's president, with approving the operation that shot down those two unarmed civilian planes. The charges are part of a broader pressure campaign on Cuba by the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, Cuba itself is buckling under weeks of persistent blackouts and widespread fuel shortages. The island's economic collapse only sharpens the relevance of the Helms-Burton Act and its underlying premise: that the Castro regime built its power on theft, and that Americans whose property was stolen deserve legal recourse.
The Supreme Court is not finished with Helms-Burton disputes, either. The justices are still weighing a separate case involving the Castro regime's confiscation of an oil refinery and service stations owned by an Exxon subsidiary. A decision in that case is expected by early summer. The Court's current term has already produced several consequential rulings across a range of policy areas, and the Exxon case could extend the Helms-Burton Act's reach even further.
The cruise lines' core argument was that Havana Docks' property interest had lapsed, that the 99-year operating right had run its course, and that by the time Carnival and the others sailed into Havana, there was no valid claim left to enforce. Kagan's dissent echoed this reasoning, noting the interest expired in 2004.
But the eight-justice majority rejected that framing. Thomas's opinion treated the confiscation itself as the triggering event. Under the Helms-Burton Act, anyone who uses property "tainted by a past confiscation" can be held liable. The majority read the statute broadly, and in favor of the American claimant.
That reading carries real financial weight. The reinstated $400 million judgment is among the largest Helms-Burton awards to date. And the case is not over. The cruise lines may still press alternate arguments on remand, though the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the statute narrows the ground they can stand on.
Justice Thomas has drawn both praise and fierce criticism for his role on the Court this term. Political attacks directed at Thomas after other recent rulings have been ugly and personal. In this case, however, his majority opinion drew near-unanimous agreement from colleagues across the ideological spectrum.
At its core, this case is about whether stolen property stays stolen. The Castro regime seized private holdings during the Cuban Revolution. American citizens and companies lost assets they had built or acquired lawfully. Congress responded with the Helms-Burton Act, a law designed to ensure that profiting from those seizures carries a price, even decades later.
The cruise lines knew where they were docking. They knew the history of the Port of Havana. They made a business decision to operate there during a brief diplomatic thaw, and they now face the financial consequences of that choice.
The Supreme Court has been active on several fronts this term, including rulings on pharmaceutical access and congressional redistricting. But the Havana Docks case touches something more fundamental than any single policy debate. It asks whether the United States will enforce the property rights of its own citizens against the legacy of communist confiscation, or whether corporate convenience gets a pass.
Eight justices said no pass. The law means what it says.
The dispute now returns to a lower court, where Carnival, MSC, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian can try alternate arguments. But the Supreme Court's sweeping interpretation of "traffics in" leaves the cruise lines with limited room to maneuver. The $400 million judgment stands unless the companies can find new legal footing, a tall order after an 8-1 rebuke.
The pending Exxon subsidiary case could extend these principles further, potentially opening the door to even larger claims against companies that benefited from Castro-era seizures. If the Court rules the same way, the Helms-Burton Act will have sharper teeth than at any point since its passage three decades ago.
For Havana Docks and other Americans whose property was confiscated by a communist dictatorship, the message from the Court is overdue but welcome: the law still protects what was taken from you, and those who profit from the theft will answer for it.
When corporations bet on doing business with the fruits of communist theft, they shouldn't be surprised when the bill finally comes due.