On June 24, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX S.A. that Exxon Mobil’s lawsuit against Cuban state-owned companies may proceed under the Helms-Burton Act.
In a majority opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court ruled that the Helms-Burton Act itself abrogates the sovereign immunity that Cuban government entities would otherwise enjoy under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. As a result, plaintiffs bringing claims under the Helms-Burton Act are not required to satisfy one of the FSIA’s statutory exceptions before suing Cuban state-owned companies in U.S. courts.
The dispute arose from Exxon’s claim that Cuban entities trafficked in property confiscated from subsidiaries of Exxon’s predecessor after the Cuban Revolution. Exxon seeks more than US$1 billion in damages.
The Court concluded that Congress, when enacting the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, intended to create a direct cause of action against Cuban agencies and instrumentalities. Justice Kavanaugh emphasized four considerations:
- The Act expressly authorizes suits by U.S. nationals whose property was confiscated by the Cuban government.
- The Act defines “person” broadly to include agencies and instrumentalities of a foreign state.
- Requiring plaintiffs to satisfy FSIA exceptions would largely nullify the remedy created by Congress.
- The Act’s jurisdictional structure and presidential suspension mechanism indicate that Congress intended a regime distinct from the FSIA.
The Court therefore reversed the D.C. Circuit and held that Exxon’s claims are not barred by sovereign immunity.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. The dissent argued that Congress can eliminate sovereign immunity only through an unmistakably clear statement, and that the Helms-Burton Act contains no explicit language repealing immunity under the FSIA. Justice Kagan also noted that Congress knew how to amend the FSIA directly when it wished to do so and had done exactly that elsewhere in the same statute.
The ruling significantly strengthens the practical effectiveness of the Helms-Burton Act. It confirms that U.S. nationals alleging trafficking in confiscated Cuban property may sue Cuban state-owned entities without first fitting their claims within an FSIA exception such as the commercial-activity exception. For companies operating in Cuba, the decision increases litigation exposure under the Helms-Burton framework. For claimants, it removes a major procedural hurdle that had previously limited the viability of such suits.
More broadly, the case illustrates the Court’s willingness to treat a later-enacted statute as superseding the FSIA where Congress has clearly created a specific remedial scheme directed at foreign state entities.