Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporacion Cimex, S. A. (Cuba), Docket No. 24-699

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

For decades, foreign governments had implicit immunity from being sued in American courts. The Supreme Court punched a major hole in that shield, ruling that Americans can now sue Cuban government agencies for property seized more than 60 years ago. The decision could reshape how the U.S. handles disputes with hostile nations and could have ripple effects far beyond Cuba.

What Happened and Why It Matters

In 1960, Fidel Castro's government seized an Exxon oil refinery, fuel terminals, and gas stations worth billions in today's dollars. For decades, those assets sat in Cuban hands while American companies and citizens watched from the sidelines, blocked by a legal wall that said foreign governments cannot be sued in U.S. courts. Then in 1996, Congress passed a law specifically designed to tear down that wall for Cuba. It said Americans could sue anyone profiting from confiscated Cuban property, including the Cuban government itself.

But there was a catch. Another law, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, created a separate set of rules for suing foreign governments. It said you could only sue them under specific circumstances, and those circumstances basically didn't apply to Cuba because of the U.S. trade embargo. For 23 years, courts blocked these lawsuits, saying the older immunity law still applied. This week, the Supreme Court said no. By a vote of six to three, the justices ruled that when Congress created the right to sue Cuba, it automatically stripped away Cuba's legal protection from those suits.

Exxon immediately filed a lawsuit seeking more than one billion dollars.

Why the Court Sided with Exxon

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, gave four reasons for the decision. First, he pointed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that said when Congress creates a law allowing people to sue government agencies, that law automatically removes their immunity, even if Congress never explicitly says so. The Cuba law does exactly that.

Second, requiring companies to jump through extra legal hoops would make the Cuba law pointless. The trade embargo makes it nearly impossible to meet the immunity law's requirements, so forcing Exxon to satisfy both laws would be like giving someone the right to sue with one hand while taking it away with the other.

Third, the Cuba law routes lawsuits through general federal courts rather than through the special process the immunity law created. The Court read that as a signal Congress wanted the immunity law to stay out of these cases.

Fourth, the law gives the President power to pause or allow these lawsuits, which is how foreign disputes were handled before the immunity law even existed.

The Dissent's Concerns

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by two other justices, warned the majority had made a dangerous mistake. She argued the majority confused having a right to sue with actually being able to sue. Under the immunity law, she noted, companies can still sue Cuban agencies if they meet one of the law's exceptions. So the right to sue is not truly blocked.

Her dissent notes that even if Exxon wins, another part of the immunity law still protects Cuban government assets from being seized to pay the judgment. That means Exxon might win in court but collect nothing, making the majority's promise of relief hollow.

Most damaging to the majority's position, Kagan pointed out, Congress had actually considered removing immunity from Cuba but decided against it after the State Department warned it would give American courts too much power over foreign governments worldwide.

Americans Suing Foreign Governments

This decision represents a significant shift in how the U.S. handles disputes with foreign governments. For 40 years, the immunity law was treated as the final word on suing foreign nations. Now, Congress can override it simply by creating a law that names foreign government agencies as defendants, without explicitly saying immunity is removed.

The Court hasn't settled if this reasoning applies only to Cuba, or to other foreign governments too. That uncertainty could invite Congress to pass more laws targeting specific countries, potentially destabilizing diplomatic relationships.