Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 24-983May 21, 2026Foreign Trade and International FinanceReversed

The question

Whether a Title III plaintiff whose confiscated property interest was a time-limited concession must show that a defendant trafficked in that specific interest, or whether use of the underlying physical property the Cuban Government confiscated is enough.

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

What the Court decided

The Court held that the cruise lines' use of the Havana docks establishes that they used property that the Cuban Government confiscated, and that Havana Docks did not have to show the cruise lines trafficked in its particular property interest, the concession. Under the plain text of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, "property which was confiscated" can mean the physical property in which the plaintiff held an interest, not only the interest itself. The Act imposes liability for trafficking in both physical property and property interests.

How the justices split

8-1
In favor 8Against 1
Thomas
Roberts
Alito
Sotomayor
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Jackson
Kagan

The Court's opinion

Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson

Title III makes any person who traffics in property confiscated by the Cuban Government liable to a United States national who owns the claim to that property. The phrase property which was confiscated can refer to the physical property in which the plaintiff held an interest, not only the interest itself. The Act imposes liability for trafficking in both physical property and property interests, so the cruise lines' use of the docks establishes use of confiscated property without a showing that they trafficked in Havana Docks' concession.

Concurring

Sotomayor, joined by Kavanaugh

Sotomayor joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately. The syllabus text provided does not state the grounds of the concurrence.

Dissenting

Kagan, writing alone

Kagan dissented. The syllabus text provided does not state the grounds of the dissent.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Court held that the cruise lines' use of the docks is sufficient to establish that they used property confiscated by the Cuban Government.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Havana Docks was not required to establish that the cruise lines trafficked in Havana Docks' own property interest, the concession.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Under the plain text of Title III, property which was confiscated can refer to the physical property in which the plaintiff had an interest, not just the interest itself.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion joined by Kavanaugh, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov