Key facts
- The Supreme Court ruled it easier for U.S. companies to seek compensation from Cuba for seized property.
- The ruling allows U.S. companies to seek compensation from Cuba for confiscated assets.
- ExxonMobil can now pursue its lawsuit against Cuban state-owned firm Corporación CIMEX for property seized decades ago.
- The Supreme Court also addressed a separate case involving cruise operators and property seized in Cuba.
- The Supreme Court ruled that American courts are the wrong forum for suits under the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victim Protection Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court has made it easier for American companies to seek compensation from Cuba for property seized decades ago, ruling in favor of ExxonMobil in its lawsuit against Cuban state-owned firm Corporación CIMEX. In a 6-3 decision, the court determined that the defense of foreign sovereign immunity is not applicable in cases brought under the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which allows lawsuits against those who "traffic" in confiscated Cuban property. The ruling reverses a lower court's decision that had allowed CIMEX to use sovereign immunity as a defense. This clears a significant hurdle for ExxonMobil, whose predecessor lost oil and gas assets valued at $70 million in 1959. The company's current claim, including interest and potential damages, exceeds $1 billion. The Trump administration had supported Exxon's appeal. The decision comes amid strained U.S.-Cuban relations, with the U.S. recently bringing murder charges against former Cuban President Raúl Castro. The U.S. has also imposed sanctions on countries supplying fuel to Cuba, exacerbating the island's economic crisis. In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court granted tech giant Cisco's bid to shut down a lawsuit claiming its technology was used to persecute members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement in China. The justices ruled that American courts are the wrong forum for such suits, rejecting arguments made by plaintiffs that they should proceed under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act. This decision was the latest to rule against plaintiffs seeking to use U.S. courts for acts of foreign governments, especially those that took place abroad. Falun Gong members argued that a substantial portion of Cisco’s activities involving China took place in the United States. An Associated Press investigation showed that American tech companies, to a large degree, designed and built China’s surveillance state, encouraged by both Republican and Democratic administrations, even as activists warned such tools were being used to quash dissent, persecute religious groups and target minorities. Documents leaked in 2008 showed Cisco saw China’s internet censorship effort, the “Golden Shield,” as a sales opportunity, with a Cisco presentation reviewed by the AP stating its products could identify over 90% of Falun Gong material on the web.