Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. | Case No. 24-983 } Oral Argument: 2/23/2026 | Decided May 21, 2026 | Docket Link: Here

Overview: Supreme Court preserves Title III liability for entities trafficking in physical property confiscated by Cuban Government even when plaintiff's underlying time-limited property interest expired before trafficking occurred.

Question Presented: Whether cruise lines using Havana docks face liability when plaintiff's concession expired before their alleged trafficking.

Posture: District Court granted summary judgment for Havana Docks; Eleventh Circuit reversed applying counterfactual analysis.

Main Arguments:

• Havana Docks (Petitioner):
• (1) Statute's "owns the claim" language focuses on current claim ownership, not hypothetical property ownership in alternate timelines;
• (2) Cuba confiscated physical dock structures Havana Docks built, not just abstract concession rights;
• (3) Congressional purpose requires deterring companies from profiting off stolen property regardless of temporal limitations.
• Cruise Lines (Respondents):
• (1) Property law fundamentals require respecting original temporal limits on property rights;
• (2) Havana Docks' concession excluded passenger services and only covered cargo operations;
• (3) Congress deliberately balanced deterrence against property law principles without providing universal relief.

Holding: Havana Docks is not required to establish that the cruise lines “trafficked” in Havana Dock’s property interest.

Voting Breakdown: 8-1. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Justice Sotomayor filed concurring opinion joined by Kavanaugh. Justice Kagan filed dissenting opinion. Vacated and remanded.

Opinion: Here

Majority Reasoning:

• (1) Title III imposes liability for trafficking in physical property confiscated by Cuba, not just trafficking in plaintiff's property interest;
• (2) "Using" confiscated property concerns physical things, not property interests—requiring one-to-one correspondence between interest confiscated and interest trafficked reads out obvious trafficking forms;
• (3) Cuba confiscated both Havana Docks' concession and physical dock structures by seizing control, making docks tainted property off-limits to users.

Separate Opinions:

• Justice Sotomayor (concurring, joined by Kavanaugh): Flags infinite-recovery problem allowing unlimited repeated recoveries from unlimited defendants for single certified loss; raises due process concerns from government assurances cruises qualified as lawful travel.
• Justice Kagan (dissenting): Majority misconstrues statute to allow recovery for trafficking in property plaintiff never owned; Cuba confiscated only time-limited concession, not physical docks Cuba always owned; temporal property boundaries deserve equal respect to spatial boundaries.

Implications: Companies doing business in Cuba using American-built infrastructure face substantial legal risk even when original American property interests expired decades ago. Decision preserves Title III as powerful deterrent preventing companies from waiting out clock on expired property interests. Lower courts must resolve whether statute allows unlimited repeated recoveries, whether lawful-travel exception shields defendants receiving government licenses, and whether concession limitations preclude passenger-service liability.

The Fine Print:

• 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A): "Any person that traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property"
• 22 U.S.C. § 6023(4)(A): "The term 'confiscated' refers to the nationalization, expropriation, or other seizure by the Cuban Government of ownership or control of property"

Primary Cases:

• Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964): Cuban Government nationalized by forced expropriation property in which American nationals held interests; confiscation can affect both physical property and property interests
• Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002): Property interests defined by both geographic dimensions and temporal aspects; both dimensions must be considered when viewing interest in entirety