Clarence Thomas Pens 8-1 Supreme Court Opinion Linked to Cuba Amid Tensions

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued an 8–1 ruling authored by Justice Clarence Thomas clarifying when companies can face liability for using property confiscated by Cuba after the 1959 revolution, a decision that could shape a wave of litigation tied to long-standing U.S. claims.

The case, Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, centers on a dispute over a Havana port facility seized by the Cuban government after Fidel Castro took power. The justices were asked to determine whether companies can be sued under the Helms-Burton Act for "trafficking" in confiscated property even after the original property interest would have expired.

Writing for the majority, Thomas emphasized Congress's intent to create a remedy tied to the confiscation itself, rather than the theoretical lifespan of a property interest. As he explained, the statute addresses "property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959," underscoring that liability turns on the act of expropriation and subsequent use. He added that the law targets those who "knowingly and intentionally traffic in such confiscated property," reinforcing what the opinion describes as an ongoing prohibition tied to the unlawful seizure.

The case stems from claims brought by Havana Docks Corp., which held a concession to operate docks in Havana that was seized without compensation. Decades later, the company sued several cruise lines-including Royal Caribbean and Carnival-arguing they unlawfully used the port between 2016 and 2019.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued the majority's reading stretches the statute beyond traditional limits tied to property rights. While the full dissent elaborates on statutory interpretation, she grounded her disagreement in the idea that the law should not extend liability based on rights that would have expired under ordinary property principles-a point central to the lower court's ruling.

The decision has broader implications for U.S.-Cuba policy and the scope of claims under the Helms-Burton Act, which allows American nationals to seek damages related to property seized by the Cuban government. With Title III of the law only fully activated in 2019 after years of presidential suspension, courts have only recently begun grappling with how far such claims can reach.

By clarifying how those claims operate, the Court's ruling is expected to influence ongoing and future litigation involving companies accused of benefiting from expropriated Cuban assets, potentially exposing a wide range of businesses to liability.

Supreme Court Ruling Lands as Raúl Castro Indictment Intensifies U.S.-Cuba Rift

The ruling comes against the backdrop of sharply escalating tensions between Washington and Havana, intensified just a day earlier by the U.S. indictment of former Cuban leader Raúl Castro.

Federal prosecutors unsealed charges accusing Castro and others of conspiracy and murder tied to the 1996 shootdown of two civilian planes that killed four people, including three Americans. The move marks what officials described as a significant escalation in U.S. pressure on Cuba's government, part of a broader campaign that has included sanctions and efforts to isolate the island economically.

Cuban leaders have condemned the indictment as politically motivated, further widening a rift that traces back to the Cold War but has deepened in recent months amid renewed U.S. efforts to force change in Havana.

This is a breaking news article. Updates to follow.

2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

This story was originally published May 21, 2026 at 7:23 AM.