Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporacion Cimex, S.A.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 3 Oct 2025

In 1960, the Cuban government confiscated the property of American nationals and transferred it to state-owned enterprises. After years without a diplomatic resolution, Congress enacted the Helms-Burton Act, which created a damages action for American nationals against "any person ... that traffics in" such confiscated property. 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1). The Act defines "person" to include "any agency or instrumentality of a foreign state," id. § 6023(11), and expressly contemplates "judgment[s] against an agency or instrumentality of the Cuban Government," id. § 6082(d). The question presented is: Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that Act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The dispute was whether Exxon could sue Cuban government-owned companies under the Helms-Burton Act without also satisfying an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, held that the Helms-Burton Act itself abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities. The Court said Congress made this clear by creating a cause of action that expressly reaches foreign agencies and instrumentalities, by structuring the Act as a standalone remedy that would largely be defeated if the FSIA still applied, by placing Helms-Burton suits under federal-question jurisdiction rather than FSIA jurisdiction, and by giving the President gatekeeping power over whether such suits may proceed, which resembles the pre-FSIA immunity regime. The Court reversed and remanded.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, dissented. The dissent argued that the FSIA is a comprehensive statute that governs foreign sovereign immunity unless an FSIA exception applies, and that Helms-Burton creates a cause of action but does not clearly abrogate immunity. It said Congress did not say anything about immunity in the statute, and the majority was reading abrogation into the law even though the standard for finding it is stringent. The dissent would have required Exxon to show that an FSIA exception applied.