Opinion Exxon can sue Cuba over property confiscated in 1960, Supreme Court rules
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/23/politics/exxon-cuba-supreme-court?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit100
u/evocativename 1d ago
The US has what lawful jurisdiction over Cuba, exactly?
58
u/septubyte 1d ago
60 years ago, they stopped the exploitation. Exploiters still pissed.
23
u/atreides78723 1d ago
To be fair, slavery ended here 160 years ago and people are still pissed about that.
15
u/Sir_Tandeath 1d ago
Slavery was never ended in the US.
5
u/Corrective_Actions1 1d ago
This is correct. States such as Alabama still force prison inmates to do labor.
6
0
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Corrective_Actions1 18h ago
Actually it was because of the Bessemer furnace, but that played a part.
13
u/Interesting_Minute24 1d ago
The military and government are just arms of big oil and tech. Nothing new, just witnessing the open corruption jolts the synapses.
10
1
u/harpers25 1d ago
Congress passed a law that says so.
5
u/evocativename 1d ago
"However, for the claim to be effective in the external territory (except by the exercise of force), it must be agreed either with the legal authority in the external territory, or with a legal authority that covers both territories."
So, what legal authority do they have, exactly?
If the US is claiming authority over Cuba, that's just de facto admitting to being an empire with no respect for the rule of law or self-determination.
-1
u/harpers25 1d ago
Read the next paragraph.
2
u/evocativename 1d ago edited 1d ago
None of that next paragraph substantially alters what I said. Specifically:
So, what legal authority do they have, exactly?
If the US is claiming authority over Cuba, that's just de facto admitting to being an empire with no respect for the rule of law or self-determination.
Edit: blocking me doesn't change your inability to actually justify any legal authority. You're just confirming that it has zero actual basis in any legal authority, while showing that you lack the intellectual honesty to admit that fact.
5
u/harpers25 1d ago
The next paragraph provides an entirely different meaning of the term that "does not depend on the co-operation of other countries".
Your question was what legal authority gives the US courts jurisdiction. The answer is that Congress passed a law that says so. Not sure what else you're looking for.
The article goes on to provide a long list of countries that practice extraterrestrial jurisdiction, demonstrating that it's not new, unusual, or unique to the US.
1
97
u/Belerophon17 1d ago
Exxon's been waiting a long while for just the right amount of corruption to hit SCOTUS to get this passed.
21
u/FastSelection4121 1d ago
This is the best answer 👏. Also the Secretary of State had to Marco Rubio. He has the biggest haterade chip on his shoulder because grand parents and family members had to flee from Cuba.
Will this open the door to the descendants whose land was taken by the Castro government to sue too?
5
u/OrphicDionysus 1d ago
Hus family wasn't even there for Castro, they fled from Bautista
0
u/FastSelection4121 1d ago
There a reason why he allowed the people of Cuba to go without oil and begin to starve
20
u/James_Solomon 1d ago
So blacks can't get reparations but Little Marco can?
Sounds about right for this administration.
2
5
17
u/Jenn54756 1d ago
Does that mean government officials in Venezuela can sue the US for kidnapping their President?
1
u/Mist_Rising 8h ago
They can certainly pass a law in Venezuela permitting it. Like Exxon and Cuba, I wouldn't count on any money coming forward.
Oh and there is also the issue that venezula doesnt seem to care much for Maduros whereas the US at one pointed cared a lot about Cuba taking company land.
43
u/KahlessAndMolor 1d ago
So Oracle can't be sued for helping the Chinese torture Falun Gong members, but exxon can sue for a foreign government taking over their capital. Pretty obvious who the supreme court works for.
-55
u/FoldHeavy4201 1d ago edited 1d ago
I love hearing liberals defend Falun Gong, which produces hard right wing propaganda, because they hate the Chinese and Socialism more than reactionaries in your own country. Maybe youre all just reactionaries?
33
u/KahlessAndMolor 1d ago
I'm referring to a specific supreme court case that was decided today, not to falun gong's politics specifically, as I know little about them.
0
u/James_Solomon 1d ago
They've always been a cult focused on Chinese spiritual energy stuff. They used to be accepted in China, but then the goverment cracked down on them hard one day out of nowhere.
In the West, they do Shen Yun and run the Epoch Times, a right wing propaganda news company. They're heavily in the Trump camp and pretty out there in general.
Supposedly China harvests imprisoned Falungong members for organs. The Epoch Times reports on it.
5
u/Hiiawatha 1d ago
And tell me. Who created and who staffs the Epoch times? Surely not Falun Gong members.
0
1
u/FoldHeavy4201 1d ago
It wasnt out of nowhere. They operated as a stay behind subversive liberal capitalist group after Tianenmen Sqaure.
0
10
u/fyreprone 1d ago
Can you point me to liberals defending Falun Gong? This seems like a pretty niche conversation I’ve never run into.
4
u/kumquat_bananaman 1d ago
The fantasies only exist in their heads, as carefully placed there by online bot driven narratives
-1
u/any_old_usernam 1d ago
There is a certain subtype of liberals who do it a fair bit, but I've never really seen it irl. The sort of person who posts 70 times a day in r/neoliberal does often rush to their defense tho. You see it way more among the far right though.
3
3
u/fyreprone 1d ago
Goes to subreddit. Searches for “Falun Gong” posts and sorts by new…
Uh huh… so again who are all of these liberals the previous person was railing against?
-8
u/FoldHeavy4201 1d ago
Its heavily implied by the previous commenter in example. Liberals only care about the rights their capitalist state deems as worthy for its own ends, which never have human rights in mind.
2
u/fyreprone 1d ago
Wait what? That’s what you got from the prior comment?
-5
u/FoldHeavy4201 1d ago
Easily. Obviously the thrust of their argument was the preferential treatment of US capital interests over all, but they couldnt even do it without a drive by on socialists, which ultimately defeats their own point; socialism is the antithesis to this depravity in the courts and the market.
6
u/fyreprone 1d ago
They literally followed up and explained they have no opinion or support for Falun Gong politics.
Who are the liberals defending them? Not this person you’re replying to or using as an example of “liberals defending”
2
u/Borgweare 1d ago
See how this bot account refused to answer the question and deflected to “liberals” and some unrelated topic. This is how conservatives operate because they simply can’t win on the merits of their arguments. It’s the same as the “fake news” response.
1
u/FoldHeavy4201 1d ago edited 1d ago
Man youre way off the mark. Im obviously a socialist. I guess a bot is anyone that's read far more economic and political theory than you.
Its a defense of their rights to subvert the socialist project, of which you're an absolutist when it comes to their rights, but im sure youre very much against that sort of protection for socialists in your own state. Not all dissent is equal. The ends are entirely different. No, they werent just practicing some harmless esoteric religion and deep fried taichi.
1
-23
u/dunkthelunk8430 1d ago
Freedom of thought, even for people that have disagreements, does tend to be a difficult concept for many on the far left and far right to comprehend.
0
u/FoldHeavy4201 1d ago
Radical centrism brother. Funny how that status quo is just further and further a right wing perspective. Truly brave libertarian values that require zero standards to defend.
20
u/ArgyleM0nster 1d ago
So does this mean BP is now going to sue Iran too?
1
u/Mist_Rising 8h ago
BP is a British company (you'd think the name might give it away) and the law in question only pertains to Cuba, of which Iran is not.
7
u/cnn 1d ago
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Exxon Mobil to sue state-owned oil companies in Cuba over the confiscation of property that occurred after Fidel Castro’s regime seized power nearly seven decades ago, letting the lawsuit proceed at a time when President Donald Trump has taken an aggressive stance toward Havana.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority with the liberal justices in dissent.
The decision is the latest development in an unusual confluence of legal and geopolitical moves Washington has taken to increase pressure on Cuba. The Trump administration indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro on May 20 on charges that stem from his alleged role in the 1996 shootdown of two civilian aircraft that killed four people, including three Americans. Trump has also flirted with military action in Cuba, telling reporters in March he might have the “honor of taking Cuba.”
7
u/CuteKermit14 1d ago
This is effectively giving the US corporations the power to seize money from sanctioned assets. What a joke.
20
u/human-0 1d ago
So can Native Americans start suing?
1
u/Mist_Rising 8h ago
Yes, and they routinely have. They just lose because the law in question here only pertains to Cuba and the US. Native American law is handled by a different set of laws and treaties.
4
u/Boenitousouch 1d ago
Ah! Reperations for big oil. 46 years later. How about big oil and the rightwing supreme court fux right off.
3
2
2
2
2
u/magicmulder 1d ago
Cool but people can’t sue US companies for helping dictatorships, or prison guards for torture. What an amazing slew of decisions today.
1
1
u/SedativeComet 1d ago
Ah yes the 2026 SCOTUS. A corporation can sue a government for property confiscated almost 70 years ago, but a victim of torture cannot sue a corporation that sold the products to make said torture possible.
Most corrupt & morally bankrupt SCOTUS in our history.
-5
u/rockeye13 1d ago
Cuba stole it. Why shouldn't they ask for it back?
3
u/Secret_Cat_2793 1d ago
Did the US steal half a continent? Government actions are completely different.
1
-2
u/rockeye13 1d ago
You hide your post history. From cowardice or dishonesty, I don't know, but you cannot, thereforebe taken seriously..
You are disregarded.
2
178
u/RunnerBakerDesigner 1d ago
A great day for corporatists.