← All Cases

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

No. 24-699 SCOTUS · Decided Decided SCOTUS
Cert Granted: Oct 3, 2025 Argued: Feb 23, 2026 Decided: Jun 23, 2026
📄 Read the Opinion

Case Overview

Unable to locate discussion of this case in the provided file. The document is a binary .docx file with corrupted or non-text content, and no readable text about this case was found.

Decision

Opinion Kavanaugh, J.
Dissent Kagan, J. (Sotomayor, Jackson, JJ., joining)

Opinion of the Court

Kavanaugh, J.

The Facts

After Cuba's revolution, the Castro government expropriated oil and gas assets owned by Exxon's predecessor, Esso. Congress enacted the Helms-Burton Act (LIBERTAD Act) in 1996, creating a private right of action against entities that 'traffic' in confiscated Cuban property. Exxon sued Cimex, a Cuban state-owned company, under Title III of the Act, but courts divided on whether sovereign immunity under the FSIA bars such claims independently of Title III.

The Issue

Whether Title III of the Helms-Burton Act alone abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban state instrumentalities, or whether plaintiffs must independently satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to proceed.

The Rules

22 U.S.C. § 6082 Helms-Burton Act (LIBERTAD Act), Title III — private right of action

Creates a civil cause of action for U.S. nationals against persons that traffic in property confiscated by the Cuban government after January 1, 1959.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1602–1611 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Foreign states are immune from U.S. jurisdiction unless a statutory exception applies; FSIA is the sole basis for suing foreign states in U.S. courts.

The Application

Exxon Mobil's Position

Exxon argues Title III of the Helms-Burton Act creates an independent right of action against those trafficking in confiscated property and independently abrogates sovereign immunity of Cuban state entities. Congress expressly intended Title III to override immunity — the statute's text and history demonstrate no separate FSIA exception is required.

Cimex's Position

Corporación Cimex argues the FSIA provides the exclusive framework for sovereign immunity, and Title III does not expressly abrogate it. Without independently satisfying an FSIA exception, plaintiffs cannot sue a foreign sovereign instrumentality regardless of what the Helms-Burton Act authorizes on the merits.

At the Supreme Court

Argued February 23, 2026. The case tests whether Congress can abrogate sovereign immunity through a specific statute without relying on the FSIA's exceptions framework. Title III was suspended by every president from 1996 until Trump activated it in 2019 — this is the first Supreme Court test of its reach against Cuban state entities.

The Conclusion

The Court held 6-3 that the Helms-Burton Act creates a specific exception to foreign sovereign immunity, allowing U.S. courts to hear suits against Cuban government-owned entities that trafficked in confiscated American property. Exxon's claims against the Cuban state corporation may proceed in federal court.

The U.S. grants general sovereign immunity, but the Helms-Burton Act explicitly restricts that immunity for Cuban agencies when sued under the Act. Suits against Cuba may continue.

Court
FiledDec 31, 2024
Judge
CL Statusactive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert GrantedOct 3, 2025
Statusactive
Filed (CL)Dec 31, 2024
View on CourtListener →
Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support