Court seeks government’s view on decades-old Exxon dispute

The Supreme Court asked the Trump Administration to weigh in on the dispute between Exxon Mobil, three Cuban-owned firms and the Cuban government over the seizure of properties more than 50 years ago. The Supreme Court asked the U.S. Attorney General to weigh in on the dispute between Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporation Cimex as part of a list that was issued by the justices at their private conference held on Friday, May 1. The dispute dates back to the 1960s, when the Cuban government led by Fidel Cuba confiscated the property of Exxon’s Cuban subsidiaries, then known as Standard Oil. This included a refinery, and more than 100 service stations. Standard Oil lost $71 million, or more than $600,000,000 in today’s money, according to a congressional commission nine years later. In 1996, Congress passed what is known as the Helms-Burton Act, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of ’96. Title III of the law allows U.S. citizens who own property in Cuba to sue those who “traffic in property that was confiscated by Cuban government on or after 1 January 1959.” The Cuban companies requested that the district judge dismiss the case. They cited the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal statute that gives foreign countries immunity in U.S. court cases. The district judge allowed one of the companies to proceed with the case, concluding it fell under an exception to FSIA for commercial activities. The district court rejected Exxon’s argument that Title III of Helms-Burton Act is an independent basis for a suit in U.S. federal courts.

Exxon appealed the decision of the district court to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit. The court affirmed the decision by a 2-1 vote. Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan explained that the “terms of the FSIA contemplate that jurisdiction in a civil action against a foreign sovereign could arise only under the FSIA itself, not under some other statute like Title III.” Title III, he added, refers to scenarios in which people or entities who traffic in expropriated property can be held liable, while the FSIA “specifically addresses when a foreign state

immune from … jurisdiction.'”

Senior Judge A. Raymond Randolph dissented. He argued that Title III “established a specific and independent cause of action” for American nations whose property had been confiscated by the Cuban government decades earlier. Exxon asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter in December. It argued that forcing Helms-Burton Act cases into the FSIA framework would deny many claimants a ‘judicial remedy’ promised by Congress, as many instances of trafficking committed by Cuban owned enterprises may not meet any FSIA exception. The solicitor general has no deadline to respond to the court’s request for government views.

The justices once again did not act on several high-profile petitions for review that have been pending for several weeks, including challenges to

Rhode Island’s ban on large-capacity

magazines and Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles, as well as a challenge to the transfer to a mining company of federal land in Arizona that the San Carlos Apache Tribe regards as a sacred site. The justices will hold a private conference again on Thursday, 15th May. Orders from that conference are likely on Monday, May 19, at 9:30 a.m. [is]Posted in Cases in the Pipeline, Featured

Cases: Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporacion Cimex, S.A.

Recommended Citation:

Amy Howe
Court requests government’s views on decades-old Exxon dispute between Cuba and Cuba

SCOTUSblog

(May. 5, 2025, 2:05 PM),