2026年2月22日 上午11:11 UTC / 路透社
美国华盛顿特区美国最高法院的远景图，2026年1月20日。路透社/Nathan Howard/档案照片
- 摘要
- 公司
- 埃克森美孚在古巴的石油天然气资产于1960年被没收
- 能源巨头寻求古巴实体的赔偿
- 法院将审理第二起涉及邮轮公司的案件
- 一部名为《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》的美国法律备受关注
2月22日（路透社）- 美国最高法院将在考虑一项1996年法律的适用范围时，探讨美古关系复杂历史所引发的法律问题。该法律允许美国公民为古巴共产党政府没收的财产寻求赔偿。
法官们将于周一审理两起围绕《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》展开的案件，一起涉及美国石油巨头埃克森美孚（ExxonMobil），另一起涉及邮轮公司嘉年华（Carnival）、皇家加勒比（Royal Caribbean）、挪威邮轮（Norwegian Cruise Line）和地中海邮轮（MSC Cruises）。
路透社”内幕追踪”通讯是您了解全球体育重大事件的必备指南。点此订阅。
该法律的第三部分条款（Title III）允许在美国法院对”交易”古巴政府在1959年菲德尔·卡斯特罗掌权革命后没收的财产的实体提起诉讼。
这两起案件虽然关注不同的法律问题，但都提出了一个问题：国会制定第三部分条款时意图赋予其多大的救济力度。在这两起案件中，最高法院都有机会消除原告在提起《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》诉讼时面临的障碍。
法官们此前从未对第三部分条款进行过司法解释，而国会授权美国总统在认为”符合美国国家利益”时暂停该条款。
由于总统多次决定暂停该条款，第三部分条款长期处于休眠状态。但对古巴采取强硬立场的唐纳德·特朗普总统在其任内第一任期内解除了暂停，引发了2019年和2020年约40起诉讼，这些诉讼正缓慢地通过法院系统推进。
特朗普政府已宣布古巴对美国国家安全构成”异常且非凡的威胁”，切断了向这个加勒比岛国输送委内瑞拉石油的通道，并威胁对任何向古巴供应燃料的国家加征关税。
数十亿美元的索赔
革命后，古巴新的共产党政府将美国财产国有化，这些财产现在价值数十亿美元，包括工厂、糖厂、炼油厂和发电厂。
《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》正式确立了自20世纪60年代约翰·肯尼迪政府时期以来一直通过总统令实施的美国对古巴贸易禁运。
第三部分条款为其财产被没收的美国公民创建了法律救济途径。这些原告可以在联邦法院向明知使用这些财产的实体（包括古巴国有实体和跨国公司）寻求加倍赔偿。
比尔·克林顿、乔治·W·布什和巴拉克·奥巴马总统都曾暂停实施第三部分条款，以避免与加拿大和西班牙等在古巴有投资的盟友发生外交冲突，直到特朗普在2019年解除了暂停。当时国务院表示，特朗普此举将”加大对古巴政府的压力”，并”惩罚那些从美国人合法财产中获益的人”。
在最高法院的其中一起案件中，埃克森美孚正寻求古巴国有公司CIMEX对其1960年被没收的石油天然气资产赔偿超过10亿美元。另一起案件中，一家在革命前为哈瓦那港口建造码头的小公司正寻求这四家邮轮公司的赔偿，因为这些邮轮公司使用了该码头。
埃克森美孚于2019年在华盛顿提起诉讼，要求法官推翻2024年下级法院的裁决，该裁决认定面对《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》索赔的古巴国有企业可以援引外国主权豁免的抗辩理由。这一法律原则通常保护外国政府及其代理人免受美国法院的起诉。
埃克森美孚的律师在2024年的法庭文件中表示，下级法院的这一裁决”为卡斯特罗政府非法没收受害者的追偿设置了又一道长期存在的障碍”。
CIMEX在法庭文件中辩称，2024年的裁决应当得到支持，因为它”既尊重又维护了国会在这一敏感领域的判断”。
法律专家表示，2024年的裁决和其他对《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》的解释，使得美国企业向古巴实体寻求赔偿的成本高昂且耗时耗力。
代表商业诉讼当事人的华盛顿律师贾里德·布彻（Jared Butcher）表示：”对许多索赔人来说，所需的时间和资源令人难以承受。”
邮轮公司纠纷
周一审理的另一起案件不涉及主权豁免问题，因为被告邮轮公司是私营企业，而非国有实体。该案的争议点在于，根据《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》，索赔人是否必须证明，如果资产未被国有化，他们现在对涉案资产仍拥有财产权益。
哈瓦那码头公司（Havana Docks Corporation）是一家美国公司，在革命前为哈瓦那港口建造了码头。卡斯特罗上台后不久就撤销了该公司对码头的合法权利。
在奥巴马放宽对古巴旅行限制后，这四家邮轮运营商在2016年至2019年间使用了这些码头。这些公司在联合法庭文件中表示，”要求我们为响应行政部门领导重新开放古巴旅行而支付数亿美元，这违背常识。”
一名联邦法官认定这些邮轮公司共需赔偿4.4亿美元，称它们”交易了被没收的财产”。但上诉法院去年推翻了这些判决，凸显了《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》索赔人面临的困难。
范德堡法学院教授英格丽德·布鲁克（Ingrid Brunk）表示：”由于各种原因，原告根据《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》的追偿非常困难，而且可能比国会1996年通过该法案时预期的更难。但这并不意味着每个原告都应该胜诉。”
新奥尔良的简·沃尔夫（Jan Wolfe）报道；艾米·史蒂文斯（Amy Stevens）和威尔·邓纳姆（Will Dunham）编辑
我们的标准：路透社信托原则。
Supreme Court wades into US-Cuba business disputes, with billions at stake
February 22, 2026 11:11 AM UTC / Reuters
节点运行失败
A general view of U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 20, 2026. REUTERS/Nathan Howard/File Photo
- Summary
- Companies
- Exxon oil and gas assets in Cuba were seized in 1960
- Energy giant seeks compensation from Cuban entities
- Court will hear second case involving cruise lines
- A US law called the Helms-Burton Act in the spotlight
Feb 22 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court is set to explore legal questions arising from the fraught history of U.S.-Cuban relations when it considers the scope of a 1996 law that lets U.S. nationals seek compensation for property confiscated by the communist-led Cuban government.
The justices hear arguments on Monday in two cases centered on the federal law called the Helms-Burton Act, one involving U.S. oil major ExxonMobil and the other involving the cruise lines Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line and MSC Cruises.
The Reuters Inside Track newsletter is your essential guide to the biggest events in global sport. Sign up here.
One of the law’s provisions, called Title III, allows for lawsuits in U.S. courts against entities that “traffic” in property confiscated by the Cuban government after the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power in 1959.
While the two cases focus on distinct legal issues, both raise the question of just how powerful a remedy Congress intended Title III to be. In both cases, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to eliminate barriers that claimants face in bringing Helms-Burton Act lawsuits.
The justices have never before interpreted Title III, which Congress authorized the U.S. president to suspend if deemed “necessary to the national interests of the United States.”
Title III was long dormant due to presidential decisions to suspend it. But President Donald Trump, who has taken a hard line toward Cuba, lifted that suspension during his first term in office, unleashing a wave of about 40 lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 that have slowly made their way through the courts.
Trump’s administration has declared Cuba “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security, cutting off the flow of Venezuelan oil to the Caribbean island nation and threatening to slap tariffs on any country supplying it with fuel.
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CLAIMS
Following the revolution, Cuba’s new communist government nationalized U.S. property that now is worth billions of dollars, including factories, sugar mills, oil refineries and power plants.
The Helms-Burton Act formalized the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba that had been in effect by presidential order since President John Kennedy’s administration in the 1960s.
Title III created a legal remedy for U.S. nationals whose property was confiscated. Such plaintiffs can seek enhanced damages in federal courts from entities that knowingly use the property, including both Cuban state-owned entities and multinational companies.
Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all suspended Title III, seeking to avoid diplomatic conflicts with allies like Canada and Spain whose companies have invested in Cuba, before Trump lifted the suspension in 2019. The State Department said at the time that Trump’s move would “ratchet up pressure on the Cuban government” and “penalize those who benefit from the rightful property of Americans.”
In one of the Supreme Court cases, Exxon is seeking more than $1 billion in compensation from CIMEX, a Cuban state-owned firm, for oil and gas assets seized in 1960. In the other case, a small company that built docks in Havana’s port prior to the revolution is seeking compensation from the four cruise lines, whose ships have used the terminal.
Exxon, which filed its suit in Washington in 2019, has asked the justices to reverse a lower court’s 2024 decision finding that Cuban state-owned enterprises facing Helms-Burton Act claims can raise the defense of foreign sovereign immunity. That legal doctrine generally shields foreign governments and their agents from being sued in U.S. courts.
The lower court’s decision “imposes yet another in a long line of barriers to recovery for victims of the Castro government’s illegal confiscations,” Exxon’s lawyers said in a 2024 court filing.
CIMEX has argued in court filings that the 2024 decision should be upheld because it “both respects and safeguards congressional judgment in this sensitive area.”
Legal experts said the 2024 decision and other rulings interpreting Helms-Burton have made it costly and time-consuming for U.S. businesses to seek compensation from Cuban entities.
“The amount of time and resources that has been required is overwhelming for a lot of claimants,” said Washington lawyer Jared Butcher, who represents clients in commercial litigation.
CRUISE SHIP DISPUTE
The other case being argued on Monday does not implicate sovereign immunity because the cruise company defendants are private companies, rather than state-owned entities. At issue in that case is whether a Helms-Burton Act claimant must establish that it would have a present-day property interest in the assets at issue if they had not been nationalized.
Havana Docks Corporation, a U.S. firm that built docks in Havana’s port prior to the revolution, sued the cruise lines in federal court in Florida in 2019. Castro revoked the company’s legal right to the docks shortly after coming to power.
The four cruise operators used the docks from 2016 to 2019, after Obama eased travel restrictions on Cuba. In a joint court filing, the companies said it defies common sense that they “should pay hundreds of millions of dollars for following the executive branch’s lead in reopening travel to Cuba.”
A federal judge found the cruise companies liable for a combined $440 million, saying they had trafficked in confiscated property. An appeals court threw out those judgments last year, highlighting the difficulties Helms-Burton Act claimants face.
“Plaintiffs are having a hard time recovering under the Helms-Burton Act for a wide variety of reasons, and it’s probably more difficult to recover than Congress had anticipated when it passed the act in 1996,” said Vanderbilt Law School professor Ingrid Brunk. “But that’s not an argument that means every plaintiff should win.”
Reporting by Jan Wolfe in New Orleans; Editing by Amy Stevens and Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复