2026-05-21 14:27:40 / reuters.com
2026年5月18日，美国最高法院预计将在华盛顿特区发布待决上诉案件的裁决结果。路透社/伊夫林·霍克斯坦/资料图
- 邮轮运营商面临总计4.4亿美元的联合赔偿判决
- 它们被指控使用了被卡斯特罗领导的古巴政府没收的码头
- 裁决发布之际正值美古关系的敏感时刻
华盛顿5月21日电 —— 美国最高法院周四对四家美国邮轮运营商作出不利裁决，这些运营商此前对总计4.4亿美元的联合赔偿判决提出上诉，理由是它们被指控非法使用古巴前领导人菲德尔·卡斯特罗领导的共产党政府于1959年没收的码头。
大法官们以8比1的投票结果，推翻了下级法院驳回对嘉年华邮轮（CCL.N）、挪威邮轮控股公司（NCLH.N）、皇家加勒比邮轮（RCL.N）和地中海邮轮公司的赔偿判决的裁定。这四家邮轮运营商被一家名为哈瓦那码头公司的美国企业起诉，该公司曾在古巴革命前建造了这些港口设施。
通过《每日案卷》新闻简报接收每日最新法律资讯，直达您的收件箱。点击此处订阅。
哈瓦那码头公司依据《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》提起诉讼。这项1996年通过的法律允许在古巴拥有财产的美国国民起诉任何“在1959年1月1日或之后被古巴政府没收的财产进行交易的人”。
周四的裁决发布之际，美古关系正处于格外敏感的时期。美国周三宣布对古巴前总统劳尔·卡斯特罗——菲德尔的弟弟——提起谋杀指控，这是唐纳德·特朗普总统对古巴共产党政府施压运动的一次重大升级。
在特朗普执政期间，美国实际上对古巴实施了封锁：威胁对向古巴提供燃料的国家实施制裁，导致古巴断电，并加剧了该国数十年来最严重的危机。
哈瓦那码头公司于20世纪初在哈瓦那港口建造了码头，并一直要求邮轮公司赔偿，因为它们的船只使用了被没收的码头设施。该公司曾从古巴政府获得为期99年的哈瓦那港口码头建设和运营特许权。
上台后不久，卡斯特罗将包括哈瓦那码头公司在内的美国企业所持有的财产收归国有并予以没收。古巴从未向哈瓦那码头公司支付过任何赔偿。
虽然《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》最初主要授权针对古巴政府及其国有企业提起诉讼，但它也为像美国邮轮公司这类在古巴开展业务的国际企业设定了潜在的法律责任。
特朗普掀起诉讼浪潮
两党的美国总统都曾选择暂停《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》的一项关键条款，这意味着私人诉讼无法推进。但特朗普在2019年第一任期内取消了这项暂停令，掀起了美国法院针对古巴国有企业和少数被指控在没收财产交易中违规的美国企业的诉讼浪潮。
这四家邮轮运营商从2016年到2019年使用了这些码头，此前巴拉克·奥巴马总统放宽了对古巴的旅行限制。这些公司在联合法庭文件中表示，要求它们“为遵循行政部门重启对古巴旅行的政策而支付数亿美元赔偿”是违背常识的。
美国一名法官在2022年裁定，邮轮公司的船只停靠该码头的行为构成财产交易违规，并对四家公司各自判处超过1亿美元的赔偿判决。
总部位于亚特兰大的美国第十一巡回上诉法院去年驳回了这些赔偿判决，理由是哈瓦那码头公司的特许权已于2004年到期，远早于邮轮公司使用这些设施的时间。
“当该特许权在2004年到期时，哈瓦那码头公司凭借该特许权拥有的任何财产权益都随之终止，”第十一巡回法院写道。该法院补充道，因此邮轮公司在2016年至2019年的行为并不构成对哈瓦那码头公司没收财产的交易。
保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯代表最高法院撰写判决意见称，第十一巡回法院的裁决与《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》的明确文本相悖。
自由派大法官埃琳娜·卡根在异议意见中写道，她的同僚们才是误读了该法案的文本。
卡根写道，“哈瓦那码头公司所拥有的只是允许其在特定期限内使用这些码头的财产权益”，而周四的裁决将“允许原告就并非属于其所有的财产的交易索赔”。
哈瓦那码头公司和邮轮运营商要么没有立即回复置评请求，要么拒绝置评。
第十一巡回法院的裁决是美国法院为《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》索赔设置障碍的案例之一。大多数此类案件都因管辖权或程序原因被驳回。
最高法院于2月听取了该案件的辩论。同一天，大法官们还就另一桩涉及《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》诉讼的案件听取了辩论——埃克森美孚（XOM.N）起诉古巴国有企业Corporación CIMEX，要求赔偿卡斯特罗1959年没收该美国能源公司在古巴全部油气资产造成的损失。
最高法院预计将于下月底前对埃克森美孚案作出裁决。
简·沃尔夫报道；威尔·邓纳姆编辑
US Supreme Court deals setback to cruise operators over Cuba confiscations
2026-05-21 14:27:40 / reuters.com
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue orders in pending appeals, in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 18, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
- Cruise operators face $440 million in combined judgments
- They were accused of using docks seized by Castro’s Cuba
- Ruling comes at sensitive moment in US-Cuba relations
WASHINGTON, May 21 – The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a setback on Thursday to four American cruise operators that contested $440 million in combined judgments after being accused of unlawfully using docks in Cuba that were seized in 1959 by former leader Fidel Castro’s communist government.
The justices, in an 8-1 ruling, set aside a lower court’s decision to throw out the judgments against Carnival
CCL.N, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings
NCLH.N, Royal Caribbean Cruises
RCL.N
and MSC Cruises. The cruise operators were sued by a U.S. company called Havana Docks Corporation that had built the port facilities before the Cuban revolution.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Havana Docks filed suit under the Helms-Burton Act, a 1996 law that allows U.S. nationals who owned property in Cuba to sue anyone who “traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban government on or after January 1, 1959.”
Thursday’s ruling was issued at a particularly sensitive time in U.S.-Cuban relations. The United States on Wednesday announced murder charges against former Cuban President Raúl Castro, Fidel’s younger brother, in a major escalation in President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign against Cuba’s communist government.
Under Trump, the United States has effectively imposed a blockade on Cuba by threatening sanctions on countries supplying it with fuel, triggering power outages and exacerbating its worst crisis in decades.
Havana Docks built docks in Havana’s port during the early 20th century, and has sought compensation from the cruise lines because their ships have used the seized terminal. The company had a 99-year concession from Cuba’s government for the construction and operation of piers at the port of Havana.
Shortly after coming to power, Castro nationalized and expropriated property held by U.S. companies including Havana Docks. Cuba has never paid any compensation to Havana Docks.
While the Helms-Burton Act primarily authorized lawsuits against Cuba’s government and its state-owned enterprises, it also created potential liability for international businesses like the U.S. cruise lines that have done business in Cuba.
TRUMP UNLEASHED WAVE OF LAWSUITS
U.S. presidents of both parties opted to suspend a key provision of the Helms-Burton Act, meaning private lawsuits could not go forward. But Trump lifted that suspension in 2019 during his first term in office, unleashing a wave of litigation in U.S. courts against Cuban state-owned entities and a few American companies that were accused of trafficking in confiscated property.
The four cruise operators used the docks from 2016 to 2019, after President Barack Obama had 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 U.S. judge in 2022 ruled that the cruise lines had engaged in trafficking by having their ships dock at the terminal and imposed judgments of more than $100 million against each of the four.
The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out those judgments last year, focusing on the fact that the Havana Docks concession would have expired in 2004, well before the cruise lines used the facilities.
“When that concession expired in 2004, any property interest that Havana Docks had by virtue of that concession ended,” the 11th Circuit wrote. Thus, the conduct of the cruise lines from 2016 to 2019 did not constitute trafficking in the confiscated property of Havana Docks, it added.
Writing for the Supreme Court, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said the 11th Circuit’s decision was in conflict with the plain text of the Helms-Burton Act.
In a dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote that it was her colleagues who had misconstrued the statute’s text.
Kagan wrote that “what Havana Docks owned was only a property interest allowing it to use those docks for a specified time,” and that Thursday’s decision will “allow plaintiffs to recover for trafficking in property that was not theirs.”
Havana Docks and the cruise lines either did not immediately respond to requests for comment or declined to comment.
The 11th Circuit’s decision was one of several from U.S. courts that have created barriers for Helms-Burton Act claimants. Most of these cases have been dismissed on jurisdictional or procedural grounds.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in February. On the same day, the justices also heard arguments in another case involving Helms-Burton Act litigation – ExxonMobil’s
XOM.N
lawsuit seeking compensation from Cuban state-owned firm Corporación CIMEX in light of Castro’s confiscation of all of the U.S. energy company’s oil and gas assets in Cuba in 1959.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the Exxon case by the end of next month.
Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham