This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. Keep up with all of our Supreme Court coverage and analysis by signing up for weekly email roundups. The best way to support our work—and unlock exclusive legal analysis—is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)

The Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision along partisan lines last week in Exxon v. Cimex, about the U.S. legal system’s relationship to Cuba. In an opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court held that a 1996 statute allows major corporations like Exxon Mobil to bring billion-dollar lawsuits against Cuban entities that they allege used their property. The court reached this decision even though these types of claims have been historically barred because of a foreign country’s sovereign immunity. Cimex was the second in a duo of cases about Cuban independence and corporate power, building off another case about cruise ships in Havana from the week before. The court’s mini “Cuba docket” offers us unexpected insights about Justice Elena Kagan, the only justice to hold the line on both cases, including her first-ever solo dissent in her 16 years on the bench. These cases also show how the conservative justices are reflexively comfortable giving corporations rights to sue in ways that mirror the Trump administration’s foreign policy goals while at the same time blocking so many actual human beings from legal remedies.

The first Cuba decision of the term concerned the seizure of property in Havana Docks v. Royal Caribbean. Havana Docks was an American company that operated several docks in the Port of Havana starting in the 1920s. The Cuban government owned the Port of Havana, but had allowed Havana Docks to use the dock on a type of lease agreement that was meant to last until 2004. But Havana Docks was never able to use the port for its full term, because Fidel Castro’s government seized Havana Docks’ property in 1960. Havana Docks was left without legal recourse for the seizure, until Congress passed the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which recognized some potential claims for companies in Havana Docks’ situation. The 1996 act was passed after Cuba shot down two planes, which killed three Americans. Among the act’s provisions was one that made it unlawful for a new American company to use or “traffic” in a property interest that a previous American company had once owned. In 2019, Havana Docks relied on the 1996 act to sue Royal Caribbean cruise lines for using the Port of Havana. The Supreme........

© Slate