Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-983_c07d.pdf
Case background
In 1928, the United States-based Havana Docks Corporation acquired from the
Cuban Government a time-limited property interest, a usufructuary
concession, in the development and operation of docks at the Port of Havana,
set to expire in 2004. After Fidel Castro seized power in 1959, the new
Cuban Government decreed that it would forcibly take American-owned
properties in Cuba and specifically identified Havana Docks; in 1960 it
seized the docks without compensation. The Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission later certified about $9 million in losses, plus six percent
annual interest, but Havana Docks had no means to obtain compensation. In
1996, Congress enacted the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, 22
U.S.C. § 6021 et seq., which creates a private right of action for U.S.
nationals who own claims to property confiscated by the Cuban Government on
or after January 1, 1959. Title III of the Act imposes liability on those
who knowingly and intentionally traffic in such confiscated property.
Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama continuously suspended the Title III
right of action; President Trump allowed the suspension to expire in May
2019. From 2016 to 2019, four commercial cruise lines — Royal Caribbean,
Norwegian, Carnival, and MSC — transported nearly a million paid passengers
to Cuba, using the docks Havana Docks had built to embark and disembark
them. Havana Docks sued the cruise lines under Title III in the Southern
District of Florida. The District Court rejected the cruise lines’ argument
that they were not liable because Havana Docks’s interest would have
expired in 2004 absent confiscation, and entered summary judgment, awarding
Havana Docks more than $100 million from each. A divided panel of the
Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that a defendant is liable for trafficking
only if its conduct would have interfered with the plaintiff’s property
interest had there been no confiscation.
Questions Presented
Holding
The cruise lines’ use of the docks is sufficient to establish that they
used “property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government”; Havana Docks
is not required to establish that the cruise lines trafficked in Havana
Docks’s own property interest. Under the plain text of Title III, “property
which was confiscated” can refer to the physical property in which the
plaintiff had an interest, and not just the interest itself. Confiscated
property is, as it were, tainted — off limits — such that anyone who uses
it can be liable to those who had any interest in that property. The
Eleventh Circuit’s counterfactual approach conflicts with the statutory
text, and the cruise lines’ argument that the Cuban Government confiscated
only the concession and not the docks themselves fails: when armed agents
physically occupied the dock facilities in 1960, they seized control of the
docks within the meaning of the Act.
The Court
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and
Jackson joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which
Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., written by Justice Thomas.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Thomas. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-983_c07d.pdf
Case background
In 1928, the United States-based Havana Docks Corporation acquired from the
Cuban Government a time-limited property interest, a usufructuary
concession, in the development and operation of docks at the Port of Havana,
set to expire in 2004. After Fidel Castro seized power in 1959, the new
Cuban Government decreed that it would forcibly take American-owned
properties in Cuba and specifically identified Havana Docks; in 1960 it
seized the docks without compensation. The Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission later certified about $9 million in losses, plus six percent
annual interest, but Havana Docks had no means to obtain compensation. In
1996, Congress enacted the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, 22
U.S.C. § 6021 et seq., which creates a private right of action for U.S.
nationals who own claims to property confiscated by the Cuban Government on
or after January 1, 1959. Title III of the Act imposes liability on those
who knowingly and intentionally traffic in such confiscated property.
Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama continuously suspended the Title III
right of action; President Trump allowed the suspension to expire in May
2019. From 2016 to 2019, four commercial cruise lines — Royal Caribbean,
Norwegian, Carnival, and MSC — transported nearly a million paid passengers
to Cuba, using the docks Havana Docks had built to embark and disembark
them. Havana Docks sued the cruise lines under Title III in the Southern
District of Florida. The District Court rejected the cruise lines’ argument
that they were not liable because Havana Docks’s interest would have
expired in 2004 absent confiscation, and entered summary judgment, awarding
Havana Docks more than $100 million from each. A divided panel of the
Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that a defendant is liable for trafficking
only if its conduct would have interfered with the plaintiff’s property
interest had there been no confiscation.
Questions Presented
Holding
The cruise lines’ use of the docks is sufficient to establish that they
used “property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government”; Havana Docks
is not required to establish that the cruise lines trafficked in Havana
Docks’s own property interest. Under the plain text of Title III, “property
which was confiscated” can refer to the physical property in which the
plaintiff had an interest, and not just the interest itself. Confiscated
property is, as it were, tainted — off limits — such that anyone who uses
it can be liable to those who had any interest in that property. The
Eleventh Circuit’s counterfactual approach conflicts with the statutory
text, and the cruise lines’ argument that the Cuban Government confiscated
only the concession and not the docks themselves fails: when armed agents
physically occupied the dock facilities in 1960, they seized control of the
docks within the meaning of the Act.
The Court
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and
Jackson joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which
Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., written by Justice Thomas.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Thomas. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.