Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Havana Docks Corporation once held the concession to operate the commercial docking facilities at the Port of Havana. The Cuban government expropriated those docks in 1960, the year after Castro's revolution. For the next six decades, the American owners had no legal mechanism to sue anyone who used them.

Congress enacted the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act in 1996 — the Helms-Burton Act — in direct response to Cuba's military shooting down two civilian aircraft flown by Brothers to the Rescue, a Cuban exile organization. Title III of the Act created a private right of action: U.S. nationals whose property was confiscated by the Cuban government after the 1959 revolution could sue foreign companies that "trafficked" in that confiscated property. The provision was politically explosive from day one. The European Union, Canada, and Mexico threatened trade retaliation, arguing that the U.S. was improperly extending its jurisdiction to penalize non-U.S. companies for lawful activity in a third country.

Congress built in a safety valve. A presidential waiver provision allowed the right of action to be suspended in six-month increments. Every president from Bill Clinton through Barack Obama — 23 consecutive years — used that waiver to prevent lawsuits from being filed.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ended the suspension on May 2, 2019, under the first Trump administration.

Within months, hundreds of lawsuits flooded U.S. courts from Cuban-American claimants targeting cruise lines, hotel chains, and other foreign businesses that had operated in Cuba using property seized in the early 1960s. Havana Docks sued Royal Caribbean, Carnival, Norwegian, and other major cruise operators who had sold Havana port calls to U.S. tourists before the Trump administration restricted Cuba travel in 2019.

The legal dispute turned on a narrow proof question. The Eleventh Circuit had required plaintiffs to show that defendants trafficked specifically in the plaintiff's precise property interest. Under that standard, Havana Docks would have needed to prove Royal Caribbean used its specific concession rights — not merely the physical docks — to dock ships at the Port of Havana. In an 8-1 decision in May 2026, Justice Thomas rejected that reading. The phrase "property which was confiscated" refers to the physical docks themselves, not only to Havana Docks' time-limited concession interest. A cruise ship docking at the Port of Havana is "using" the confiscated property for Title III purposes.

The fact that Havana Docks' concession would have expired in 2004 doesn't extinguish the claim.