Supreme Court Considers Fate of Docks and Other Assets Seized by Cuba in 1960

The Supreme Court of the United States is weighing a case that could determine whether American companies and families can reclaim or seek compensation for docks, factories, and other properties seized by Cuba during the revolutionary nationalizations of 1960.

At the heart of the dispute is a question that has lingered for more than six decades: can U.S. courts hear claims over property confiscated by a foreign government when those assets later generate business involving American firms? The ruling could reshape how long-dormant expropriation claims are handled and may carry major diplomatic and financial consequences.

The properties in question were taken after the Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro, when the new government nationalized industries ranging from sugar mills to ports and warehouses. Thousands of U.S. citizens and corporations lost holdings overnight. While some claims were later certified by a U.S. government commission, most were never resolved through compensation agreements.

The current case focuses on port facilities and related infrastructure that were once owned by American companies before being absorbed into Cuba’s state-controlled economy. Lawyers for the claimants argue that profits earned from those assets decades later—through shipping contracts, leasing arrangements, or partnerships involving U.S. firms—amount to unlawful “trafficking” in confiscated property.

Their argument draws on the Helms-Burton Act, a U.S. law passed in 1996 that allows lawsuits against companies that benefit from property expropriated by Cuba after the revolution. For years, key parts of that law were suspended by successive administrations to avoid conflict with allies. In 2019, those provisions were activated, opening the door for a wave of lawsuits.

Lower courts have been divided on how far such claims can go. Some judges have ruled that foreign sovereign immunity shields Cuba and its state entities from liability in U.S. courts. Others have found that when commercial activity is involved—such as leasing docks or earning revenue from shipping contracts—those protections may no longer apply.

During oral arguments, several justices pressed lawyers on whether the case risks turning U.S. courts into forums for resolving Cold War-era property disputes that traditionally fall under diplomatic negotiations. One justice questioned whether Congress truly intended American judges to rule on the legality of actions taken by a foreign government more than 60 years ago.

Supporters of the claims countered that the law was designed precisely for that purpose: to provide justice for property owners who never received compensation and whose losses were tied directly to U.S.-Cuba tensions. They argue that ignoring these cases effectively rewards companies that profit from confiscated assets.

The stakes are high. Certified claims by U.S. nationals against Cuba are estimated to exceed $8 billion, a figure that grows with interest each year. A ruling in favor of the claimants could encourage hundreds of similar lawsuits targeting international shipping firms, hotel chains, and energy companies that have done business with Cuban state enterprises.

Cuba’s government has condemned the lawsuits as illegitimate and politically motivated, warning that they undermine prospects for normalization of relations. Havana maintains that the nationalizations were lawful under Cuban law and insists that compensation should be addressed through state-to-state negotiations, not private litigation.

Business groups and foreign governments are also watching closely. European and Canadian companies with operations in Cuba fear that an expansive interpretation of U.S. law could expose them to costly legal risks and discourage foreign investment.

A decision is expected later this year. If the court allows the claims to proceed, it would mark a significant shift in how historic expropriation cases are treated and could revive unresolved chapters of the Cold War. For families and firms who lost their docks and factories in 1960, the case represents a rare chance for recognition and possible restitution. For U.S. foreign policy, it could reopen long-standing tensions over Cuba’s revolutionary past and its economic future.