SCOTUS AM

February 23, 2026 — SCOTUS Morning Report

Feb 23, 2026

0223 AM SCOTUS TT·0223 Supreme Court news Update February 23 Morning Report AM YT

In 1960, Cuba nationalized Exxon's oil refineries and gas stations. Sixty years later, Exxon wants six to seven hundred million dollars back. The question is whether a US court can drag the Cuban government in to answer for it.

Under Title III of the Libertad Act (Helms-Burton, 1996), US nationals whose property was seized during the Cuban Revolution can sue entities that "traffic in" that confiscated property. Every president from 1996 through Trump's first term activated the six-month presidential suspension of Title III — until Trump let it lapse in 2019, triggering a wave of Libertad suits. Exxon (successor to Standard Oil and Esso) lost its Cuban oil refineries, gas stations, and other property in the 1960 nationalization, now operated by Cimex and Cupet — entities owned by the Cuban government. Exxon wants the Foreign Claims Commission's assessed value plus interest: roughly $600-700 million. The central question is foreign sovereign immunity: can a US court haul a foreign government into court without its consent? The Schooner Exchange case (1812) established that each nation chooses whether to recognize foreign sovereign immunity in its courts — it's our choice, not an inherent limitation. Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) as the general rule: you cannot sue foreign governments in US courts, unless an FSIA exception applies. Exxon argues the Libertad Act itself is an implied exception to the FSIA. Cimex argues the FSIA requires an express written exception — no magic words, no exception. Secondary issue: does Cimex selling US-origin goods in its Cuban gas stations (through a third-party intermediary) constitute "commercial activity in the United States" sufficient to strip sovereign immunity under the FSIA's commercial activity exception? Cimex says it hired a third party that chose to source from the US — that's not Cimex doing business in America.

Constitutional lawforeign sovereign immunity

Constitutional question: Whether the Libertad Act's creation of a private right of action against entities that traffic in confiscated property implicitly lifts foreign sovereign immunity — and whether Article I or Article II controls that determination. The president claims Title III's on/off switch gives him control over the immunity question; Chemerinsky argues Congress's commerce and jurisdiction powers are the operative constitutional grants.

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises · 24-983

A company built a dock in Havana in 1904. Cuba took it in 1960. The 99-year lease expired in 2004. Carnival Cruise used the dock in 2016. Havana Docks wants Carnival to pay for something it can't actually own anymore. Bryan quoted the lower court quoting Buzz Lightyear: "These rights cannot survive to infinity and beyond."

The Havana Docks Corporation held a 99-year lease to charge shipping fees at a Havana dock, extended from an original 50-year grant in 1904. In 1917, ITT's Sostenes Behn (Bryan: "interesting character — Google him") purchased the lease. Cuba rewrote its port law in 1960, declaring public rights to the shoreline and effectively ending the private lease. The 99-year lease would have expired in 2004 regardless. US cruise ships weren't allowed to sail to Cuba until the Obama era, roughly 2016. Havana Docks sued Carnival and other cruise lines under Libertad Title III for using the dock in 2016 — twelve years after the lease expired. The lower court, quoting Toy Story, held that Havana Docks' rights could not "survive to infinity and beyond." Havana Docks argues that because they were prevented from exercising their rights (by US-Cuba policy) for all those years, they should still be able to sue for use of the property even after the lease's natural expiration date. Bryan's framing: "I don't want to paint this as fundamentally clear from a fairness perspective. It's really not fair. But fair usually isn't the question when we're dealing with statutory construction."

Statutory interpretationproperty rights

Constitutional question: Tangential — Helms-Burton cases raise foreign affairs clause questions about who controls recognition of foreign sovereign immunity (Art. I vs. Art. II), also raised in Exxon/Cimex. Bryan also flagged potential Venezuela implications: weakening congressional control over sovereign immunity could affect Venezuela-related litigation.

← February 20, 2026 — Part B February 24, 2026 — SCOTUS Morning Report →