U.S. Supreme Court Revives Cuba Cruise Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 in favor of Havana Docks Corporation in a $440 million legal case involving four major cruise operators.

In its opinion, the court stated:

We conclude that the cruise lines used confiscated property to which Havana Docks owns the claim. Because the Court of Appeals concluded otherwise, it did not reach the cruise lines’ remaining arguments against liability.”

The decision overturns a previous appeals court ruling that had dismissed judgments against Carnival Corporation, Royal Caribbean Group, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, and MSC Cruises.

The lawsuit was filed by Havana Docks Corporation, a U.S. company that originally developed the Havana port facilities before the Cuban Revolution. The company argued that the cruise lines used its confiscated port property between 2016 and 2019 while transporting nearly one million paying passengers to Cuba.

According to the case, the Cuban government seized the port facilities on or after January 1, 1959. Under the Helms-Burton Act, a 1996 U.S. law, American nationals who owned confiscated Cuban property can pursue legal action against companies that profit from or “traffic” in those assets.

Havana Docks claimed the cruise lines paid millions of dollars to Cuban state-linked entities while generating hundreds of millions in revenue from voyages to Cuba. The company also argued that the cruise operators were aware of Havana Docks’ certified ownership claim before continuing to use the port.

A federal district court had previously sided with Havana Docks and awarded damages exceeding $100 million against each cruise line. However, the Eleventh Circuit Court later overturned the ruling, arguing that Havana Docks’ original concession agreement would have expired in 2004, meaning the cruise companies could not have trafficked in property rights that no longer existed. On May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court rejected that interpretation in an 8-1 decision.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas stated that the confiscated docks themselves, rather than only Havana Docks’ former concession rights, qualified as “property which was confiscated” under the law. As a result, the court found that companies commercially using the property could still face liability. The case has now been returned to the Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings.

Justice Elena Kagan issued the lone dissent, arguing that the majority’s interpretation effectively transformed a time-limited lease into a permanent property right and could potentially lead to unlimited future claims.