COLUMN: A Supreme Court in the Pay of American Imperialism

An Oil Giant vs. a Revolution

Exxon Mobil is suing two Cuban state-owned companies, Union CubaPetroleo and Corporación Cimex, seeking damages for the nationalization of its gas stations and refineries in 1960. What makes this case unique is the bold legal argument put forward by the oil company: it is asking the Supreme Court to exempt Title III of the Helms-Burton Act from any obligation to respect sovereign immunity. In short, Exxon Mobil wants U.S. courts to be able to try foreign states without any restrictions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, however, had rejected this argument, ruling that the criteria for an exception to sovereign immunity had not been met. The Trump administration filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Exxon Mobil, arguing that sovereign immunity constitutes an unjustified obstacle to the “justice” that American citizens deserve.

Exxon Mobil’s audacity leaves me speechless. A company whose annual profits run into the tens of billions of dollars is suing a developing country for events that occurred before most of the plaintiffs were even born. And what’s most disturbing? The Trump administration endorses this offensive, willing to sacrifice a fundamental principle of international law—state immunity—to satisfy the insatiable appetite of a multinational corporation. This is predatory capitalism in its purest form: profits first, national sovereignty second.

A Panamanian Subsidiary at the Heart of the Dispute

The properties for which Exxon Mobil is seeking compensation belonged at the time to Esso Standard Oil, its Panamanian subsidiary. This legal distinction is far from trivial. Cuba’s 1960 nationalization targeted assets controlled by U.S. interests, regardless of their formal ownership structure. Law 851, authorizing these expropriations, was enacted by Fidel Castro in response to Washington’s growing hostility following the overthrow of the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. The total trade embargo imposed in 1962 was explicitly intended, in the words of Under Secretary of State Lester Mallory, to “deny Cuba money and supplies, to reduce monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, despair, and the overthrow of the government.” The current lawsuits are a continuation of that same strategy by other means.

I am struck by the historical irony of this situation. Exxon Mobil portrays itself as a victim of “illegal expropriation,” even though the United States spent decades supporting Batista, a corrupt dictator who had sold his country’s resources to American interests. The Cuban Revolution was not a theft; it was an act of national liberation. That these companies continue to claim property on this basis sixty years later is an insult to history.

An Expired Contract Turned into a Legal Pretext

The case of Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises rests on a legal interpretation that is creative, to say the least. The Kentucky-based company is seeking $439 million from four cruise lines for using passenger terminals in Havana between 2016 and 2019. The problem? The original concession contract dates back to 1904, with an initial term of 50 years that was extended to 99 years, meaning it expired in 2004. Furthermore, this contract authorized only the loading and unloading of cargo, not passenger use. The Cuban Ports Law clearly states that ports are public property and that the public has a “fundamental right to use the seashore.” A legal opinion commissioned by the cruise lines concluded that Havana Docks’ rights were always subject to state ownership and public rights, meaning the concession could be terminated at any time.

How can a contract that expired more than twenty years ago serve as the basis for a $439 million claim? This is the kind of legal fiction that can only exist in a system corrupted by imperialism. Cruise lines had the right to use these ports by virtue of Cuba’s sovereignty over its own territory. That a few heirs nostalgic for the pre-revolutionary era are attempting to cash in on a concession that has long since expired is an aberration. And is the Supreme Court seriously going to hear this case?

The Shady Connections of the Anti-Cuban Lobbyist

At the heart of Havana Docks’ strategy is Mickael Behn, grandson of Sosthenes Behn, the founder of the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. This company grew into a global telecommunications empire in the 1930s thanks to Sosthenes’ close ties to the Franco and Hitler regimes. The Behn family paid bribes to officials under the Batista dictatorship and acquired the port concession in 1917. Today, Mickael Behn and his cousins hold the majority of Havana Docks’ shares, with Warren Buffett as a minority shareholder. Behn has teamed up with Javier Garcia-Bengochea, a Cuban-American who claims to own more than 82% of the commercial properties along Havana’s coastline, although only a fraction of his claims have been certified under the International Claims Settlement Act.

I cannot ignore this family’s sinister background. The Behns prospered by maintaining ties with the darkest regimes of the 20th century. Today, the heir is using this scandalous legacy to attempt to strip Cuba of its ports. The fact that Warren Buffett is involved adds yet another layer of cynicism to this affair. Billionaires protect their own interests, and the sovereignty of small nations is of no consequence.

How a Few Billionaires Have Influenced U.S. Politics

In 2018, Behn and Garcia-Bengochea launched a smear campaign featuring billboards in Miami and radio spots linking the Cuban military to U.S. cruise lines. This campaign was indirectly supported by the Cuban Democratic Directorate, an NGO that had received more than $3 million in U.S. federal grants to “promote freedom of information” in Cuba. The following year, Trump activated Title III of the Helms-Burton Act. Behn and Garcia-Bengochea’s direct lobbying of the Trump administration involved controversial figures such as Otto Reich, a former diplomat implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal, and John Bolton, a former national security adviser. The Cormac Group organized “$10,000 coffee meetings” between lobbyists and politicians such as Marco Rubio and Rick Scott. Garcia-Bengochea proudly stated: “Everyone who has filed a lawsuit [under Title III] owes us. We did it for them, and they know it,” a statement that reveals the extent of the influence these few individuals wield over U.S. foreign policy.

This account of lobbying makes me want to vomit. A handful of wealthy individuals are buying access to the White House and dictating the foreign policy of a superpower. And the result? Thousands of Cuban workers are losing their jobs in the cruise industry. Families are suffering. And Behn and his cronies are bragging about their influence. This is American democracy in its most degraded form: power goes to the highest bidder, and the Cuban people are paying the price.

The tourism industry warns of disastrous consequences

Cruise lines and their industry groups have filed a brief with the Supreme Court warning against accepting the Havana Docks theory. They argue that allowing the conversion of expired, non-exclusive, public-purpose concessions into indefinite real property interests would expose companies to massive retroactive liability and freeze any future normalization policy between the United States and Cuba. The cruise lines note that “the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Havana Docks Corporation’s limited-term interest expired before 2016 is not the kind of decision that warrants a petition for certiorari, let alone a diplomatic crisis.” These warnings fall on deaf ears in the face of the U.S. government’s drive, which seems determined to ignore the potentially catastrophic consequences for international trade and diplomatic relations in the region.

Cruise lines aren’t exactly champions of international law, but their concerns deserve to be heard. They understand what the Supreme Court seems to have forgotten: accepting these absurd claims would set a dangerous precedent. Any company operating in a country that has undergone a revolution or nationalization could be sued sixty years later over expired contracts. This would spell the end of all legal certainty in international trade.

The Executive Branch Dictates Terms to the Judiciary

U.S. Attorney General D. John Sauer presented arguments in both cases, describing the immediate review of the meaning and scope of the Helms-Burton Act as a “priority for U.S. foreign policy.” In the first year of his second term, Trump dominated the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, losing only five of twenty-six cases. Robert Muse, a lawyer specializing in Cuban legal issues, points out that “history teaches us that the courts are exceptionally deferential to the executive branch in the area of foreign relations. If the U.S. government tells the court that there is a national security interest at stake, the court will not scrutinize the basis for that claim.” This traditional deference means that the Supreme Court could well uphold an extreme interpretation of the Helms-Burton Act without any real critical scrutiny.

That is the heart of the problem. The separation of powers is supposed to be a pillar of American democracy, but in the realm of foreign policy, the Supreme Court abdicates its responsibility. When the President says “national security,” the justices bow. This is an intellectual and moral abdication. The judiciary becomes a tool for validating the executive branch, not a countervailing power. And Cuba suffers the consequences.

The Absurdity of a Powerless Legal System

Robert Muse perfectly sums up the absurdity of the situation: “Helms-Burton is a truly bizarre law. It does not advance national security, it does not compensate anyone, and it produces judgments with nowhere to be enforced.” Indeed, even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, there are no Cuban assets in the United States to allow for the enforcement of the judgments. This reality raises an inevitable question: what is the real purpose of these lawsuits? The answer may lie in the logic expressed by Trump, who claims that “Cuba is on the verge of collapse” and derives “all its revenue” from Venezuelan oil. The judgments could serve as financial leverage for a future pro-American regime—a way to freeze Cuban assets in anticipation of regime change.

This logic makes my blood run cold. These lawsuits are not intended to secure actual compensation; they are tools to prepare for a conquest. Washington is laying the legal groundwork to seize Cuban resources following a regime change imposed from the outside. This is modern colonialism, plain and simple. The Supreme Court is being used as a tool to legitimize this planned plunder.

When the Law Becomes a Weapon of Economic Warfare

The hearings scheduled for February 23, 2026, before the Supreme Court represent much more than two commercial disputes. They embody the continuation, through legal means, of an economic war that has lasted for six decades. The sudden activation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, the strategic choice to bring these two cases before the highest court, and the unanimous support of the executive branch demonstrate clear coordination between politics and the law. The objective has remained unchanged since 1960: to starve Cuba into collapse. The methods have simply evolved, shifting from a straightforward embargo to complex legal maneuvers involving multinational corporations and powerful lobbies.

I view this situation with deep sadness mixed with unyielding anger. The U.S. Supreme Court, supposed to be the supreme guardian of justice, is preparing to validate the unjustifiable. Judges appointed for life will decide the fate of a sovereign nation based on fanciful claims dating back to another era. And meanwhile, the Cuban people continue to suffer under the weight of economic sanctions that have never had anything to do with justice, but everything to do with imperialist arrogance. A tragedy is unfolding before our very eyes, and the world seems to be looking the other way. I refuse to accept this normalization of injustice.

Signed, Jacques Provost