The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that cruise lines face Helms-Burton Act liability for using confiscated Cuban port facilities, reinstating up to $440 million in claims.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on May 21, 2026, that cruise lines operating at Cuban port facilities confiscated from American companies in 1959 may face liability under the Helms-Burton Act, vacating the Eleventh Circuit and reinstating the possibility of roughly $440 million in combined judgments against four major operators [1]. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, holding that confiscated property retains its "tainted" character under the statute regardless of whether the original claimant's underlying concession would have expired before the defendants' use of the property [2]. The decision sends the litigation back to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with that interpretation [1].
The case, Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., consolidates claims against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Carnival Corporation, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, and MSC Cruises arising from their use of the Port of Havana between 2016 and 2019 [2]. Havana Docks Corporation, which held a pre-revolutionary concession to operate cargo and passenger facilities at the port, filed suit under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, the provision that creates a private right of action for American nationals whose Cuban property was nationalized by the Castro government [3]. Paul Clement argued the case for the plaintiffs [1]. The Eleventh Circuit had previously ruled for the cruise lines on the concession-expiration theory, a holding the Court unanimously rejected across seven justices joining Thomas's majority opinion [3].
Justice Elena Kagan dissented alone, warning that the majority's framework could permit plaintiffs to recover damages that exceed any reasonable measure of their actual loss, effectively allowing "infinite recoveries" for finite injuries [2]. The dissent signals a fault line in how the Court will approach remedies questions on remand and in any parallel Helms-Burton litigation that follows [3].
The ruling materially expands litigation exposure for any company that transacted business in Cuba using properties seized in 1959 [2]. Title III was largely dormant for decades because successive administrations suspended the private right of action; the Trump administration activated it in 2019, triggering a wave of suits [3]. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the taint doctrine now forecloses the expiration-of-concession defense that the travel and hospitality industries had treated as a primary shield [1]. Defendants will return to the Eleventh Circuit facing damages calculations that may approach the full $440 million aggregate, with the merits of the taint ruling no longer in dispute [2].