More than 60 years after the revolution led by Fidel Castro brought Cuba into a new era, the lawsuit over the US assets seized by Cuba in 1960 suddenly heated up again.
The focus of the lawsuit is Havana Docks Company - an American enterprise that used to operate wharves in Cuba before being confiscated by Cuban revolutionary forces.
In 2019, after President Donald Trump's administration activated a long-standing "frozen" clause in the embargo law, the company sued major cruise lines for docking at Havana and exploiting confiscated infrastructure.
A similar lawsuit initiated by Exxon Mobil, related to nationalized oil and gas assets, is also being considered in the same period. The core legal question is whether companies that are "benefiting" from assets that once belonged to US businesses must compensate in US courts or not?
US Department of Justice lawyers support the plaintiff, arguing that these lawsuits are important foreign policy tools. According to the government's argument, allowing compensation will prevent international businesses from cooperating with Cuba to exploit confiscated assets, thereby tightening the effectiveness of the embargo that has lasted for more than half a century.
Debates at the court took place sôi nổi for many hours on February 23. Some judges expressed sympathy with the view that confiscated assets are "prohibited areas" in terms of commerce until compensation is made.
However, the final result is still unclear, because the incident touches on the president's authority in foreign affairs as well as the turbulent history of US-Cuba policy.
The current political context further increases the weight of the ruling. President Donald Trump's administration has increased economic pressure on Cuba, from tightening tourism to threatening to impose tariffs on countries supplying oil to the island nation.
If the Supreme Court gives the green light for the lawsuits, the wave of lawsuits could spread to nearly 6,000 claims that have been certified by the US Foreign Complaints Committee, with an initial total value of $1.9 billion - equivalent to more than $9 billion at current prices.
Before the Cuban Revolution, US businesses controlled up to 90% of electricity production, telephone systems, many mineral deposits, oil refineries and sugarcane plantations on the island. After nationalization, most of the assets were transferred to state-owned enterprises. US investors have since pursued compensation through diplomatic channels, but are still deadlocked to this day.
In 1996, the US Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act, tightening sanctions and emphasizing that resolving property claims was a key condition for normalizing relations with Cuba.
The cruise tourism industry argues that they are acting legally, based on the Obama administration's easing policy in 2016, when Washington and Havana re-established diplomatic relations.
The trains at that time took American tourists to visit writer Ernest Hemingway or explore Cuban culture, in a period considered a rare "ice thaw".
A decade later, the picture has reversed. If the US Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs, Cuba may face further legal risks and a decline in foreign investment. Conversely, if the lawsuit is rejected, it will be a blow to the White House's maximum pressure strategy.
This ruling is therefore not only a legal story about the old ports in Havana, but also a new test for the direction of US-Cuba relations in a stormy period.
