I won't get into Erie doctrine stuff I didn't ever do well with, but yeah, it seems sketchy.
Kind of interesting case with respect to cruise lines doing business with Cuba where we had oral arguments yesterday;
Quote:
The plaintiff in the first case, Havana Docks, filed its lawsuit in 2019 against four cruise lines Royal Caribbean, Norwegian, Carnival, and MSC. It contended that from 2016 to 2019 the cruise lines had "trafficked" in property that it owned by bringing tourists to the Havana Cruise Port Terminal.
A federal court in Miami agreed and awarded Havana Docks more than $400 million. By a vote of 2-1, a federal appeals court reversed that ruling. Because Havana Docks' interest in the use and operation of the docks would have ended in 2004, the majority reasoned, before the cruise lines began bringing tourists to Havana, the cruise lines could not be held liable under the Helms-Burton Act.
Representing Havana Docks, Richard Klingler told the justices that the "confiscated property" covered by the Helms-Burton Act includes property of which Cuba seized control in 1960, including the docks. "Stopping trafficking in such facilities," Klingler argued, "locks them up as tainted until Cuba pays for what it took." Therefore, he suggested, it doesn't matter that Havana Docks would no longer have an interest in the property after 2004, because the cruise lines had been "trafficking … in facilities." The contrary ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, he said, would put "an 'open for business' sign on property taken from Americans," despite Congress' purpose in enacting Title III.
Paul Clement, representing the cruise lines, countered that "Title III of the Helms-Burton Act provides an action against someone who traffics in property which was confiscated from the Cuban government." "The plain text of the statute," he said, "requires a one-to-one correspondence between … the property interest that was confiscated, and the property interest that was trafficked" so, for example, someone who harvests timber on a piece of property cannot be held liable for trafficking in a confiscated property interest if only a mining interest in that property was confiscated. "The same principles apply to time limits on the property," Clement contended.
Justice Elena Kagan appeared sympathetic to the cruise lines' argument. "What the statute is saying," she said to Klingler, is that someone can sue for property that has been confiscated from them. "And once … you read the statute like that, it seems as though … the property that was confiscated from that person is here not the docks," but instead simply an interest in the docks. And that interest, she continued, expired in 2004.
Justice Samuel Alito was more skeptical. Summing up his view of the dispute, he told Clement that Congress had indicated that Havana Docks had a right to use the docks "for 44 more years and that had a value, and the Cuban government has not compensated them for what they've taken, and, therefore, nobody is to use" the docks "in the future until there's compensation from the Cuban government. … [Y]ou go into this … with your eyes open," Alito concluded.
Could lead to an unusual split, imho. I guess not Trump admin related but for the current pressure for regime change there. More
at scotusblog link. Gratuitous 'really, really' stupid KBJ quote:
Quote:
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the justice who was perhaps the most consistently supportive of Havana Docks, seemed to agree. The entire aim of Title III, she posited, "was to try to keep Cuba from trafficking in this property." And although she acknowledged that "it may seem pretty draconian to suddenly give multiple recoveries to all these people … if you think of it in light of Congress's intention to really, really make it hard for Cuba to traffic in these properties, that kind of a sanction makes at least some sense."
But she's so good at feelings and intentions.
