The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in favor of Exxon Mobil, allowing the company to pursue a lawsuit seeking compensation from Cuban government-owned entities for oil and gas assets confiscated by Cuba in 1960. At the time, Exxon, then operating as Standard Oil, had extensive fuel distribution operations across the island with over 100 service stations. These assets were seized following Fidel Castro’s rise to power and the nationalization policies enacted by the Communist government.

Exxon’s suit targets three Cuban state-owned companies that the company alleges have continued to exploit the confiscated refineries and service stations without providing remuneration. This case represents one of two key rulings this term regarding the scope of Americans’ ability to seek compensation in U.S. courts from foreign entities benefiting from property seized by the Cuban government. Earlier this year, the court ruled in favor of a U.S.-based port operator suing cruise lines that have used Cuban-owned docks in Havana without compensation.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority based its decision on the Helms-Burton Act, a statute that permits such lawsuits targeting Cuba and Cuban-owned companies at the discretion of the U.S. president. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, emphasized that presidents hold “gatekeeping authority” over these suits, with the current administration supporting the position as a means to advance U.S. foreign policy goals. The ruling affirms that blocking these suits due to other statutes, such as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which normally exempts foreign governments from U.S. jurisdiction, would undermine Congress’s and the president’s policy judgments.

The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan arguing that the Helms-Burton Act does not override the traditional immunity foreign governments enjoy under U.S. law. She noted that the statute in question does not explicitly address piercing that immunity, underscoring a legal debate over the scope of foreign sovereign protections.

The case now returns to lower courts for further proceedings. Exxon’s losses were previously valued at more than $70 million as of 1969, and the company previously faced setbacks in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which ruled it could not proceed unless an exception to sovereign immunity applied.

The Helms-Burton Act of 1996, enacted after a fatal incident involving Cuban missile fighter jets and a Cuban exile group, made resolution of property claims a prerequisite for normalized U.S.-Cuba relations and allowed U.S. nationals to sue entities “trafficking” in confiscated Cuban assets. Historically, successive presidents had suspended the suit provisions, viewing them as politically sensitive, but the Trump administration reversed this stance amid broader efforts to pressure the Cuban government, including restrictions on oil shipments from Venezuela and Mexico.

Critics, including legal scholars specializing in international law, warn that extending this legal interpretation could have wider diplomatic consequences, potentially exposing state-owned enterprises from countries such as Brazil, China, Russia, and Singapore to similar liability when conducting business involving Cuba. Cuban government lawyers have also cautioned that the courts should not infer exceptions to sovereign immunity that Congress did not explicitly intend. Meanwhile, Exxon and its advocates maintain that these lawsuits serve as an important tool for exerting diplomatic and economic leverage on Cuba.