WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday broadly upheld lawsuits by U.S. companies whose property was seized in Cuba prior to 1960, including claims against cruise ship lines that docked there in the past decade.
These suits do not seek compensation from Cubans but from those who “traffic in property which was confiscated by the Cuban government.”
In a 8-1 decision, the justices revived a $400-million judgment against four cruise lines whose ships stopped in Havana between 2016 and 2019.
All of them used docks that were built early in the 20th century by the Havana Docks Corporation, an American company.
Justice Clarence Thomas pointed to a rarely enforced 1996 law that authorized suits against those who “use property tainted by a past confiscation.”
Past presidents had suspended enforcement of the law, but President Trump allowed such claims to go forward.
That change in policy exposed “traffickers in confiscated property of United States nationals” to brings claims in federal courts, Thomas said.
The four cruise line companies — Caribbean Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises — transported nearly a million paid passengers to Cuba, he wrote.
They paid the Cuban government tens of millions of dollars to do business in Cuba. They collectively earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from voyages that included a stop in Havana, he said.
A federal judge in Florida ordered each of the cruise lines to pay $100 million in damages, but the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta blocked the decision by a 2-1 vote. It said Havana Docks Corporation had a contract to run the docks had expired in 2004.
Justice Elena Kagan made the same argument in dissent.
She said “the docks belonged to the Cuban Government — not Havana Docks — all along. What Havana Docks owned was only a property interest allowing it to use those docks for a specified time. And that time-limited interest expired in 2004 — more than a decade before the cruise lines ever used the docks.”
Still pending before the court is a similar claim from Exxon Mobil Corp., which was argued on the day in late February.