Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 3 Oct 2025

The LIBERTAD Act is an essential pillar of United States foreign policy toward Cuba's hostile and anti-American regime. Title III of that Act creates a private right of action for United States nationals who have a claim to property confiscated by that regime against persons who traffic in that property. 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1). The Act specifies that such trafficking "undermines the foreign policy of the United States" by, among other things, "provid[ing] badly needed financial benefit" to the Cuban regime. Id. § 6081(6). The question presented here applies in every case brought under Title III, and will determine whether that provision continues to advance U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba: whether a plaintiff must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim (as the statute requires), or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation" (as the divided Eleventh Circuit panel held below).

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The dispute was whether cruise lines could be liable under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act for using docks in Havana that had once been operated by Havana Docks Corporation. Justice Thomas wrote that the Court held the cruise lines’ use of the docks was enough to show they trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban Government, and Havana Docks did not have to prove trafficking in its own former property interest alone. The Court read the statute to cover both physical property and property interests, and it said the docks themselves were confiscated when Cuban forces seized control of them in 1960. Because Havana Docks had a certified claim and the cruise lines used the docks without authorization, the Court concluded the Court of Appeals erred in applying a counterfactual test that would have focused on whether the concession would have expired anyway. The Court vacated and remanded.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Kagan dissented. She argued that Title III should be read to require trafficking in the specific property interest taken from the plaintiff, not simply in physical property associated with that interest. In her view, the cruise lines’ use of the docks did not establish liability on the theory adopted by the Court, because the relevant confiscated property was the concession and the statute should not be extended beyond that interest.