Helms-Burton Wakes Up: What Havana Docks and Exxon Mean for Anyone Who Touches Confiscated Cuban Property

The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, known as Helms-Burton, gave U.S. nationals whose property was confiscated by the Cuban government a right to sue anyone who "traffics" in that property. That is Title III. Every president suspended the right to sue from 1996 until May 2019, when the suspension was allowed to lapse. Lawsuits followed, and for several years lower courts trimmed them back.

In 2026, the Supreme Court decided two Title III cases, and both came out in favor of the plaintiffs. For a cigar industry with deep roots in pre-revolutionary Cuba, that deserves attention.

Havana Docks: the property, not just the plaintiff's interest

Havana Docks Corporation held a concession to operate docks in Havana harbor before they were confiscated in 1960. Decades later, cruise lines carried passengers to Cuba and used those docks. The cruise lines argued that Havana Docks' concession would have expired in 2004 anyway, so there was nothing left to traffic in when the cruises sailed.

On May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court rejected that argument by a vote of eight to one, in an opinion by Justice Thomas. The Court held that the "property which was confiscated" can be the docks themselves, not only the plaintiff's time-limited interest in them, and that the cruise lines' use of the docks satisfied that element of the statute, so the use was trafficking if done knowingly and intentionally. The Court did not address the statute's exception for lawful travel and remanded for further proceedings.

The practical meaning is that the age of a confiscation and the terms of a plaintiff's old interest no longer cut off a claim as easily as defendants had hoped.

Exxon: Cuban state entities can be sued

Five weeks later, on June 23, 2026, the Court decided Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX. The question was whether a plaintiff suing a Cuban state agency or instrumentality under Title III also has to fit the case into an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. By six to three, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court held that Title III itself removes their immunity.

There are real limits. Immunity from execution, meaning the ability to collect a judgment against state property, remains a separate barrier. And commentators have noted that only a handful of the more than five thousand claimants certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission have sued Cuban state entities. But the door is open wider than it was in May.

A cigar case: Rodriguez v. Imperial Brands

The cigar trade has already seen what a Title III suit looks like. Heirs of Ramón Rodríguez Gutiérrez, whose company's Havana factory was confiscated in 1961, sued Imperial Brands, WPP and related companies over the marketing of cigars made at that property between 2010 and 2020. Reports describe the property differently, so I will not characterize it beyond what the court said.

On July 23, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants, applying the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and a Fifth Amendment reasonableness analysis.

That result points to the limit that matters most. Title III's reach depends on the defendant. A company that does business in the United States, and that a court can reach, faces a statute the Supreme Court has now read broadly. A foreign company with no U.S. presence may be beyond the court's power regardless of what it did with Cuban property.

What to ask now

For U.S. companies that deal with Cuba directly or indirectly, these are the questions I would want answered before entering a new relationship:

• Is any property involved, such as a factory, farm, warehouse, port or hotel, one that was confiscated after 1959?
• Is there a certified claim on that property, or a U.S. national who could bring one?
• Does the proposed activity fit any statutory exception, including lawful travel?
• Where could the company be sued, and does it have contacts that would let a U.S. court reach it?

Title III was written in 1996 and woke up in 2019. After 2026, it is no longer a sleeping statute.