The United States Supreme Court has asked the federal government for its perspective on a long-standing dispute involving Exxon Mobil and three Cuban-owned companies regarding properties that were confiscated by the Cuban government over 50 years ago. This request for input from the U.S. Solicitor General is part of Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporation Cimex, as marked in an order list released by the justices.
The conflict traces back to 1960, when the Cuban regime, led by Fidel Castro, seized assets belonging to Exxon, then operating under the name Standard Oil, including a refinery and over 100 service stations. In 1969, a Congressional commission certified that Standard Oil had suffered over $71 million in losses—equivalent to more than $600 million today.
This case is tightly interwoven with the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known as the Helms-Burton Act. Title III of this legislation permits U.S. citizens whose properties were seized in Cuba to sue entities that “traffic” in such properties. In 2019, Exxon initiated legal action against three Cuban state-owned enterprises, claiming they trafficked in seized properties.
The Cuban entities requested the district court dismiss the case, citing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally grants foreign states immunity in U.S. courts. However, the district judge permitted the case against one entity to proceed, based on a commercial activity exception. Nonetheless, the judge dismissed Exxon’s argument that Title III of the Helms-Burton Act served as an independent ground for filing a lawsuit.
Exxon then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which supported the district court’s decision by a 2-1 vote. Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan emphasized that jurisdiction in civil actions against foreign sovereigns derives solely from the FSIA. Conversely, Senior Judge A. Raymond Randolph dissented, asserting that Title III offers a specific cause of action independent of the FSIA framework.
Subsequently, Exxon approached the Supreme Court, arguing that aligning Helms-Burton Act claims with the FSIA would undermine Congress’s promise for a judicial remedy, as many instances may not meet FSIA exception criteria. Meanwhile, the Cuban companies have defended the D.C. Circuit’s decision, suggesting the case could still proceed under other legal grounds.
As the government deliberates, the court looks to potentially address other high-profile petitions, including challenges to firearm bans and land transfer cases, in an upcoming conference.
For continuous updates, visit the full article on SCOTUSblog.