Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Docket No. 24-983

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

A company that lost control of Cuban docks 60 years ago just won a major legal victory. The Supreme Court ruled that cruise lines operating those same docks today can be held financially responsible, even though the company's original operating contract would have expired long ago. The decision opens the door to potentially massive payouts and raises thorny questions about how far back in time companies can be held liable for using property seized by foreign governments.

What Happened: A Property Seized, a Law Passed, and a Lawsuit

In 1960, Cuba's government seized docks that Havana Docks Corporation had built and operated. The company had a contract to run those docks, but it was set to expire in 2004 anyway. Cuba never paid a dime in compensation. Decades later, in 1996, Congress passed a law giving Americans whose property was seized by Cuba the right to sue anyone profiting from that confiscated property. For years, presidents blocked this right from being used. Then in 2019, President Trump allowed lawsuits to proceed.

Between 2016 and 2019, four major cruise lines had used those same docks, bringing nearly a million passengers through them. Havana Docks sued all four cruise lines. A trial court awarded the company more than one hundred million dollars from each cruise line. But a federal appeals court threw out those wins, reasoning that since Havana Docks' contract would have expired in 2004 anyway, the cruise lines couldn't be held liable for using the docks after that date. The Supreme Court disagreed, with eight of nine justices siding with Havana Docks.

The Core Disagreement: What Counts as "Confiscated Property"?

The cruise lines made a straightforward argument: Havana Docks never owned the physical docks. The company only had a time-limited right to operate them, and that right was always going to end in 2004. So how could they be liable for using property after the company's rights expired? The cruise lines said the law only protects against trafficking in property that was actually taken from someone, and the docks were never Havana Docks' property to begin with.

Havana Docks saw it differently. The company argued the law protects not just legal rights on paper but the actual physical property itself. The docks were real infrastructure that Havana Docks built and that others were now profiting from. The law should cover both the loss of operating rights and the loss of the physical docks themselves.

What the Supreme Court Decided

Justice Thomas, writing for eight justices, sided with Havana Docks. The Court said the law's definition of "property" is broad enough to include the physical docks themselves, not just the specific legal right to operate them. The reasoning was practical: people use physical things like docks. They don't use someone's abstract legal interest. If the law only protected against trafficking in the specific operating right, it would miss the most obvious ways someone could profit from confiscated property.

The Court also rejected the cruise lines' argument about what would have happened if Cuba never seized the docks. That kind of hypothetical reasoning, the justices said, would actually block lawsuits in the clearest cases the law was designed to address. The case goes back to the lower court to sort out remaining details.

A Cautionary Note From Within the Majority

Justice Sotomayor agreed with the outcome but raised two important concerns. First, she worried about unlimited liability. If every person or company using the docks can be sued for the full certified loss amount, tripled, the total damages could grow without limit. She doubted Congress intended for a company that suffered one loss to collect unlimited sums from an endless stream of future defendants.

Second, she flagged that federal agencies had actually licensed and encouraged the cruise trips at the center of this lawsuit. She said the lower court needs to carefully examine whether that government approval protects the cruise lines from liability.

The Dissent: A Different Reading of the Law

Justice Kagan was the sole dissenter. Her argument was straightforward: Havana Docks never owned the physical docks. Cuba always owned them. What Havana Docks owned was a time-limited right to operate them, and that right was always going to end in 2004. She compared it to a company with a contract to operate only one dock out of two sitting side by side. No one would say that company could sue over use of the dock it never had rights to. A time limit works the same way as a property boundary.

In her view, the majority's decision treats a temporary operating contract as if it were permanent ownership. She argued this stretches the law far beyond what Congress intended.

Awarding Damages

The Supreme Court's decision creates real uncertainty. The physical docks still exist and are still being used. Under the majority's reasoning, potentially every future user could face the same tripled damages. The law contains no cap on how many times that amount can be collected. The lower courts now have to figure out how to handle that going forward, and whether the government's prior approval of the cruise operations changes anything.

This case shows how old property disputes can have modern consequences. A seizure from 1960 is now generating lawsuits in 2024. The Court sided with the company that lost its docks, but questions remain about how much liability is fair and whether the government's own actions should shield companies from being sued.