You Can Now Sue the Cuban Government. Collecting Is a Different Problem.

The short answer

In June the Supreme Court held that the Helms-Burton Act itself strips Cuban state entities of sovereign immunity, so a claimant need not also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Claimants have already begun using it, including the holder of the largest certified claim against Cuba. But immunity from suit and immunity from execution are different doctrines, and the second one was not disturbed.

What the Court held

In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A., decided June 23, 2026, the Court held 6 to 3, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, that the Act abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities directly. Stacking a Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requirement on top, the majority reasoned, "would thwart Congress's design," because the embargo would make those exceptions nearly impossible to satisfy, and "Congress does not ordinarily enact self-defeating statutes." Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, on the ground that abrogating sovereign immunity requires unmistakable clarity that the statute's text does not supply.

Standard Oil's Cuban assets, later Exxon's, included a refinery, product terminals and 117 service stations, all seized in 1960. An American commission certified the loss at nearly $72 million in 1969.

What has happened since

The case is active again before Judge Amit Mehta in the District of Columbia. The court of appeals recalled its earlier mandate in July and issued a new one on August 28, 2026. Judge Mehta ordered a joint status report and held a status conference on September 9, 2026.

Separately, the holder of the largest certified claim against Cuba filed suit in Washington in late July 2026, seeking roughly $267.6 million plus sixty years of interest at six percent, over the confiscated electric utility.

Our take: the judgment is the easy part

Commentators have identified two obstacles that the decision did not address, and both are serious.

Personal jurisdiction. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act contains a mechanism by which proper service establishes personal jurisdiction. If Helms-Burton abrogates immunity without routing through that statute, it is not obvious what supplies personal jurisdiction over a Cuban entity, or how service is accomplished. No court has answered this.

Execution. Sovereign immunity from execution is governed by a separate framework, and the decision did not touch it. Property of a Cuban instrumentality remains largely protected from attachment. A claimant may obtain a judgment and find nothing to levy against.

There is a serious argument that a judgment has value even when it cannot be collected. It is a public adjudication that the confiscation was wrongful, it can be leveraged in any future normalization negotiation, and for families who lost everything it is a record. That is a real reason to litigate. It is not the same as a recovery, and any lawyer who describes it as one is doing the client a disservice.

Layered on top is a sanctions problem. Treasury designated the Cuban state oil company in June 2026, and it is a party in this very case. A blocked counterparty complicates any settlement, because the mechanics of paying or receiving value from a designated entity require their own authorization.

What it means practically

If you hold a certified claim, this decision materially changed what is possible, and the timing question is now live given the two-year limitations period discussed in our post on the threshold questions in every Helms-Burton case. If you are a foreign company operating in Cuba's energy, mining, financial services or security sectors, you should expect to be named alongside Cuban state entities, and you should assume the sanctions and litigation analyses will run together.

When to call a lawyer

Before filing, so the collection analysis is done first rather than last.

Sources

●      Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A., No. 24-699, Supreme Court slip opinion

●      Transnational Litigation Blog, Cimex (June 30, 2026)

●      U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, reporting on the Cuban Electric filing (July 31, 2026)

Disclaimer

This post discusses publicly reported legal developments for general informational purposes. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney client relationship, and it does not reflect the firm's position in any pending matter. Outcomes depend on the specific facts and the governing law of the relevant jurisdiction.