Justice Elena Kagan stood alone in May 2026 when the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Havana Docks v. Royal Caribbean that cruise lines could be sued over property seized by Cuba’s communist government more than 60 years ago, marking her first solo dissent after nearly 16 years on the bench.
The case centered on Havana Docks, a U.S. company that operated docks in Havana’s port under a lease agreement meant to last until 2004, before Fidel Castro’s government confiscated the property in 1960. Writing for the 8-justice majority, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that the docks remained “tainted” property under the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, meaning anyone who used them could face liability to former claimants—even decades later.
Kagan disagreed sharply. She argued that the docks had always belonged to Cuba, not Havana Docks, which she likened to “a renter with a lease.” Critically, Havana Docks’ property interest expired in 2004, long before cruise lines used the port between 2016 and 2019. The majority’s interpretation, she wrote, treated “all property interests as if they were perpetual ones,” stretching the statute far beyond its intent.
The significance of Kagan’s solitary stand became clearer weeks later when the Court issued a second ruling, this time 6-3, allowing ExxonMobil to sue Cuban state entities over an oil refinery confiscated in the 1990s. Kagan joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent, arguing the majority improperly bypassed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which normally bars such lawsuits out of respect for international sovereignty.
Together, the two rulings reflect what legal analysts see as a troubling pattern: the Court expanding corporate access to courts while narrowing it for ordinary people. As Slate noted, the same Court that issued these decisions has simultaneously shut courthouse doors to religious minorities, immigrants, and minority voters. Kagan’s dissents warn that the rulings hand unprecedented power to large corporations while potentially destabilizing U.S. foreign policy, since the 1996 act gives the president an “on-off switch” to suspend lawsuits—a power the Trump administration has wielded to enable these suits.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor flagged a separate danger in a concurrence in the Havana Docks case: under the majority’s reading, Havana Docks could potentially recover “millions, if not billions, of dollars over and over again, so long as anyone continues to make any commercial use of the docks.” That interpretation, she warned, likely exceeds what Congress intended when it created remedies for property seized six decades earlier.
Kagan’s unprecedented decision to dissent alone—a rare move for a justice known for seeking consensus—underscores her conviction that the Court had crossed a line. Her dissents advance a vision of judicial restraint and statutory fidelity that her colleagues rejected, but they also spotlight a fundamental question about who gets access to American courts: multinational corporations or ordinary citizens.
Sources
- SCOTUSblog — Detailed analysis of the Havana Docks 8-1 decision, Kagan’s solo dissent, and the statutory interpretation dispute.
- Slate Magazine — Comprehensive examination of both Cuba cases, Kagan’s dissents, and concerns about corporate power versus access to justice for ordinary people.
- The Washington Post — Report on Kagan’s first solo dissent after 16 years on the Supreme Court.
- Reuters — Coverage of the Havana Docks ruling and Kagan’s dissent on statutory interpretation.
- Courthouse News — Analysis of Kagan’s solo dissent and the majority’s statutory construction.
- Newser — Report on Kagan’s historic solo dissent in the Havana Docks case.
