Supreme Court says Exxon can sue Cuba over $1B in seized property — potentially boosting US financial pressure on the country
Rain clouds roll over the United States Supreme Court building on June 18, 2026 in Washington, DC. The high court handed down three decisions Thursday, including United States v Hemani where the court ruled 9-0 to limit a federal ban on drug users’ Second Amendment right to own firearms. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that oil giant Exxon Mobil can sue the Cuban government over more than $1 billion in seized property, potentially giving the United States greater financial leverage over the cash-strapped country.
In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that state-owned companies can’t argue they are protected by sovereign immunity to fight litigation over assets seized by Cuba’s communist government.
The decision — as well as a similar case last month when the Supreme Court ruled companies can be held liable for using seized property — comes as the Trump administration ratchets pressure on the struggling island nation through embargoes and a criminal indictment of former leader Raul Castro. The decision could open the door to more litigation over assets seized by the Cuban government, adding pressure to the economically distressed country.
The case revolved around the interpretation of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, also known as the Helms-Burton Act, which was passed by Congress after Cuba shot down two unarmed planes flown by humanitarian organization Brothers to the Rescue. The law established the right of U.S. nationals to sue over property seized by the Cuban government, though every president until President Donald Trump waived that provision.
The day Trump allowed lawsuits against Cuba in 2019, Exxon Mobil sued over their property in the country — including hundreds of gas stations, an oil refinery, depots and packaging plants — valued at more than $1 billion. In court, the Cuban government argued that the companies were protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and that Exxon would need to show they were exempted from that law for the case to proceed. Both the district and circuit courts sided with Cuba — eventually leading the case to the Supreme Court, which reversed those rulings in the opinion on Tuesday. “It would make little sense for Congress to construct an elaborate statute authorizing suits against the Cuban government agencies and instrumentalities if, because of the FSIA, almost no suits could ever get through the courthouse door,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote that “the entire architecture of the Helms-Burton Act” establishes that sovereign immunity does not apply and that ruling otherwise would “badly undermine Congress’s design and thwart the President’s statutorily authorized assessment of current developments in Cuba.”
“After the President has allowed suits under the Act to go forward, there is no additional FSIA hurdle that a plaintiff must clear in order to sue Cuban agencies or instrumentalities,” wrote Kavanaugh. “The Helms-Burton Act authorizes private suits against Cuban agencies and instrumentalities — suits that would largely be nonstarters if subjected to the FSIA’s requirements.”
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the majority, writing that the Helms-Burton Act falls short of the high legal bar to show that it eliminates claims of sovereign immunity.
“Nothing in the text or ‘architecture’ of the Helms-Burton Act suggests that Congress abrogated the sovereign immunity of these defendants — much less that it did so with the requisite unmistakable clarity,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote.
Last month, the Supreme Court delivered a similar defeat for Cuba, ruling that cruise lines Royal Caribbean, Carnival, Norwegian and MSC can be held liable for using a port confiscated by the Cuban government.
Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) on Sept. 9, 2026, in Dallas, Texas. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — When Republican Rep. Bryon Donalds announced his campaign for Florida governor on Fox News in February 2025, he said he was “excited to have the full endorsement of President Trump,” and his campaign website described him as a “Trump-Endorsed Proven Conservative Fighter.”
This week, with Trump’s approval ratings hitting lows in the final stretch of the midterm campaign season, Donalds adjusted his website, removing several mentions of the president.
His site now features video of Donalds campaigning and appearing on stage in front of supporters with his family — with Trump’s endorsement reduced to one of several from prominent Republicans rolling across the page.
Responding to the attention to his updated site, Donalds shared an updated image of his endorsements page, saying, “I am proud to have President Trump’s endorsement.”
“While everyone is focused on our website, check out our policy proposals to make life more affordable for Floridians,” he added.
The changes, similar to other GOP candidates, come as some Republicans are taking steps to distance themselves from Trump amid voters’ frustrations with the Iran war and rising gas and diesel prices.
Donalds’ home page also no longer features a photo of Donalds and his wife posing with Trump, or a section called “On the Issues,” that says Donalds “is committed to implementing President Trump’s Make America Great Again agenda so that our state and our nation’s best days are still ahead.”
A spokesman for Donalds said the congressman is “proud” to have Trump’s endorsement. Donalds, unlike some Republicans running for re-election, appeared on stage at the GOP midterm convention in Dallas earlier this month, helping the party sell Trump and Republicans’ legislative record.
“Our campaign website reflects Byron’s focus on the issues that matter most to Floridians — affordability, insurance costs, and government transparency. He’s running to be the next Governor of Florida, is proud to have President Trump’s endorsement, and has real policy proposals to tackle those issues,” Gates McGavick told ABC News in a statement.
Former U.S. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer appears for a House Committee on Education and Workforce hearing on Capitol Hill on June 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The former Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer had an “inappropriate relationship” with a member of her security detail and created a “toxic” work environment, according to a report from the department’s Office of Inspector General.
The long-awaited report quietly released Thursday night details the allegations against Chavez-DeRemer and members of her senior staff. She resigned as secretary in April and members of her senior staff were fired, according to the report.
Anthony D’Esposito, the Labor Department Inspector General, found that more than 30 witnesses said Chavez-DeRemer created a “toxic, intimidating and humiliating” work environment. The Inspector General opened the investigation after receiving a complaint in January 2026 about an inappropriate work environment under Chavez-DeRemer.
In one instance highlighted in the report, during personal travel to Oregon in April 2025, Chavez-DeRemer allegedly stopped at a club with “partially nude” dancers, had her head of security rearrange the detail so her limousine driver could enter with her, and then gave a member for the detail cash from her purse and had him give it to a performer.
“When the agent resisted and sought guidance from ASAIC 1, ASAIC 1 instructed him to comply with Chavez-DeRemer’s requests,” according to the report. “Chavez-DeRemer then took additional money from her purse and asked the agent to drop the bills one by one onto the partially nude woman.”
Chavez-DeRemer also allegedly had an “inappropriately close and unprofessional relationship” with a member of her security detail who “exercised supervisory and operational authority over her protective detail,” according to the report.
The report also alleges that Chavez-DeRemer used her staff for personal tasks, such as organizing her closet and purchasing holiday ornaments.
Chavez-DeRemer also accepted gifts and did not properly report them, according to the Inspector General. Those gifts included rodeo tickets, an alligator wallet and two cowboy hats, according to the report.
A text message to the former secretary was not returned; ABC News reached out to Chavez-DeRemer’s attorney as well.
ABC News has reached out to the Labor Department for comment.
A light rain falls outside of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the release of new opinions on June 23, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order, a move which would upend more than a century of legal precedent and a national tradition that have said babies born on American soil are automatically American citizens.
The ruling, one of the most highly anticipated of the year, is a major test of Trump’s unprecedented assertion of presidential power in his second term with major stakes for millions of children and their families.
What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is the idea that a child automatically becomes a citizen of the country in which they are born, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.
It reflects the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil, extending citizenship purely on the basis of geographic location.
By contrast, many countries extend citizenship under the principle of jus sanguinis, or right of blood, which is determined by the nationality of a child’s parents regardless of the location of birth.
How does birthright citizenship work in the U.S.?
With few exceptions, all babies born on U.S. soil become U.S. citizens.
For the approximately 3.6 million children born in American hospitals every year, the birth certificate alone has been the key to obtaining Social Security numbers, passports and early life benefits.
Into adulthood, the birth certificate has been universally recognized as proof of citizenship for such things as voter registration, employment, home loans and military service.
What does the Constitution say about birthright citizenship?
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to address the legal status of former slaves and their descendants, says plainly that all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.
Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law enacted in 1940.
Courts and the government have repeatedly interpreted the 14th Amendment to unambiguously confer citizenship on all children born in the U.S., including babies of unauthorized noncitizens and temporary residents, such as asylum seekers, international students, tourists and seasonal workers.
Do other countries allow birthright citizenship?
Yes. Thirty-two other countries have citizenship laws nearly identical to the U.S., according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center. Roughly 50 more have limited versions of birthright citizenship.
The most inclusive citizenship policies are in countries in the Western Hemisphere. Brazil, Canada, Argentina and Mexico, for example, closely mirror American law.
Pakistan, Chad and Mozambique are other notable comparators to the U.S.
European countries have historically been more restrictive when it comes to citizenship. France, Greece and Spain extend citizenship at birth only to children whose parents were also born in those countries.
Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom grant automatic citizenship to any child born to a legal resident.
Why does President Trump want to end birthright citizenship?
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship by redefining the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
He claims that children born to noncitizen parents who are either unlawfully in the country or who possess temporary legal status, such as tourists or foreign students, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore ineligible.
The order would restrict citizenship to babies of current American citizens or other lawful permanent residents that have established “domicile” in the U.S.
The president argues the current citizenship policy is a “scam” that has allowed wealthy adversaries to take advantage of American benefits and “ripped off” taxpayers by providing financial assistance to children of undocumented people.
What is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship has been part of American tradition repeatedly affirmed by courts and legislators for more than a century.
The Supreme Court previously rejected constitutional arguments similar to the ones Trump is making.
“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in 1898 in the landmark Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. decision, addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.
Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups have warned that ending birthright citizenship would harm hundreds of thousands of children born every year to noncitizen parents and create a bureaucratic nightmare for older Americans who would no longer be able to prove citizenship simply with a birth certificate.
An estimated 255,000 children born every year to noncitizen parents would have lost legal status under the order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have faced difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”
What happens if the Supreme Court allows Trump to end birthright citizenship?
The Trump administration says federal agencies have prepared guidelines for implementing a new process of conferring citizenship to children born after the order takes effect.
Federal agencies — by electronic databases or otherwise — would evaluate the legal status of a child’s parents first before making a determination of eligibility for citizenship and, in turn, for a Social Security number, passport and other benefits.
A U.S. birth certificate alone would no longer be sufficient proof of citizenship for any child going forward, including those born to American parents.
Immigrant advocates have warned of a “bureaucratic nightmare” for all parents of newborns, with vulnerable low-income children being particularly at risk of not getting necessary health care or nutrition assistance.
Some children who would not qualify for U.S. citizenship may be rendered “stateless” since several countries, particularly in southeast Asia, do not confer citizenship automatically to children born to their nationals abroad. That lack of legal status might make some newborns immediately eligible for deportation.
Can birthright citizenship be stripped if the court upholds Trump’s order?
The Trump administration says the executive order is not retroactive and would only apply to babies born after it takes effect.
However, some legal experts fear that any legal reasoning upholding Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment could potentially be used by a future administration to pursue efforts to strip citizenship from some people if it wanted to.
“The government could move to unnaturalize people who were born here of illegal residents,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during oral arguments in April.
When will the Supreme Court issue a ruling?
The justices are expected to rule in the case — Trump v. Barbara — before adjourning for their summer recess in early July.
