Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Commander in Chief clause, states that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Can Title III of the Helms-Burton Act alone allow U.S-based plaintiffs to sue Cuban instrumentalities, such as Cuban state-owned oil companies, which would normally be given sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?
This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether Title III of the Helms-Burton Act alone abrogates Cuban instrumentalities’ sovereign immunity, or whether plaintiffs must also show an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). The FSIA states that foreign states and their instrumentalities are immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, except for actions based on commercial activity causing a direct effect in the United States or expropriation, which applies when rights to property taken in violation of international law are at issue. Petitioner, Exxon Mobil Corporation (“Exxon”) argues that Title III of the Helms-Burton Act satisfies the clear-statement rule that Congress requires to abrogate foreign sovereign immunity under FSIA. Respondents, Corporación CIMEX and related corporations (collectively “CIMEX”) posit that Congress did not create a clear exception to FISA and that Title III suits must fit within the existing exceptions in FISA that allow for suits against countries or instrumentalities that typically enjoy sovereign immunity. This case touches on the interpretation of Congress’s intent in enacting the Helms-Burton Act and the balancing of interests between recognition of sovereign states and fairness in outcomes.
Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Before Fidel Castro rose to power, Exxon Mobile Corporation (“Exxon”), then known as Standard Oil, owned multiple subsidiaries in Cuba. Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
● Amy Howe, Court Asks for Government’s Views in Decades-Old Exxon Dispute with Cuba, SCOTUSBlog (May 5, 2025).
● Walter Liu, A 60-Year Grievance: Exxon Takes on Sovereign Immunity; Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, Harvard Undergraduate Law Review (October 8, 2025).
● Walter Spak, Cuban Immunity Crisis: How Sovereign Immunity Impacts Enforcing the Helms-Burton Act Against Business Ventures in Cuba, American University Business Law Review (2023).
Separation of Powers is a doctrine of Constitutional law under which the three branches of U.S. government (executive, legislative, and judicial) and their duties, are kept legally separate.
