Once the jewel of the Caribbean, Havana boasted resorts, casinos and nightlife that rivaled anything found in the United States. Just 90 miles of the Florida coast, it offered a tropical retreat, free of many of the regulations that could restrict the adventures of any American. Bootleggers from prohibition ran rum and sugar from Cuba to Florida until the fall of the Volstead Act. They then turned their fortunes into casinos, drawing cruise ships filled with thirsty gamblers leaving from Florida.
Like the cruise lines today, they struck rights agreements with the ports and government of Cuba. It was all smooth sailing until the Cuban Revolution of 1959.
Following Fidel Castro’s communist takeover of the island, all foreign assets were seized and nationalized. Havana’s tourism industry ground to a halt as the US imposed strict trade and travel sanctions, effectively shutting the island off to Americans.
Other countries have maintained relationships with Cuba, maintaining a tourist trade that includes cruise ships. Some of those cruise lines, including Royal Caribbean and Carnival, still use those ports in Havana.
The company that held the rights to those ports BEFORE the revolution filed a suit against Royal Caribbean, Carnival, Norwegian and MSC cruise lines, arguing that the use of these ports violates their agreement for exclusive rights.
The suit made it all the way to the Supreme Court where, last week, the court ruled in favor of Havana Docks Corporation – the company that filed the suit against the cruise lines. The ruling was 8 to 1 – with Justice Elana Kagen writing the lone dissent.
The original agreement was signed for a 99 year term in 1905 – it expired in 2004. Havana Docks Corporation alleges the cruise lines used their ports between 2016 and 2019.
So how did this company claim rights 65 years after a revolution revoked them, and twelve years after the rights expired in the first place?
Amy Howe joins Engage to answer that question. Howe is the co-founder of and a reporter with SCOTUSblog.
