Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-22-07020/USCOURTS-caDC-22-07020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba)
Appellee
Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Panama)
Appellee
EarthRights International
Amicus Curiae for Appellee
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Appellant
Union Cuba-Petroleo
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 19, 2023 Decided July 30, 2024 

No. 21-7127 

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, 

APPELLEE

v. 

CORPORACION CIMEX, S.A. (CUBA), 

APPELLANT

CORPORACION CIMEX, S.A. (PANAMA) AND UNION 

CUBA-PETROLEO, 

APPELLEES

Consolidated with 22-7019, 22-7020 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 1:19-cv-01277) 

Michael R. Krinsky argued the cause for appellants/crossappellees. With him on the briefs were Lindsey Frank and 

Nathan Yaffe. 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 1 of 46
2 

Steven K. Davidson argued the cause for appellee/crossappellant. With him on the briefs were Shannen W. Coffin, 

Michael J. Baratz, and Michael G. Scavelli. 

Marco B. Simons, Richard L. Herz, and Michelle C. 

Harrison were on the brief for amicus curiae EarthRights 

International in support of appellee/cross-appellant. 

Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, PILLARD, Circuit 

Judge, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge SRINIVASAN. 

Dissenting opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge

RANDOLPH. 

SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge: Over six decades ago, Exxon 

owned multiple subsidiaries in Cuba that in turn owned various 

oil and gas assets. In 1960, the Cuban government 

expropriated those assets without compensating Exxon. 

In 1996, Congress enacted the Cuban Liberty and 

Democratic Solidarity Act, which furnishes a cause of action 

against those who traffic in property confiscated by the Cuban 

government. Exxon brought suit under that Act against three 

state-owned defendants. Exxon’s suit contends that the 

defendants currently traffic in confiscated property by 

participating in the oil industry and operating service stations 

using the property. 

One of the defendants unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the 

complaint based on foreign sovereign immunity. The Foreign 

Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) generally bars United States 

courts from exercising jurisdiction over foreign sovereign 

entities like the defendants in this case. The district court held 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 2 of 46
3 

that the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act does not 

itself overcome a foreign sovereign’s general immunity from 

suit under the FSIA, and that jurisdiction in this case thus 

depends on the applicability of an FSIA exception. The court 

determined that the FSIA’s expropriation exception does not 

apply in the circumstances but that the FSIA’s commercialactivity exception does. 

We agree with the district court that the Cuban Liberty and 

Democratic Solidarity Act does not confer jurisdiction in this 

case and that the FSIA’s expropriation exception is 

inapplicable. As for the commercial-activity exception, we 

conclude that the district court needed to undertake additional 

analysis before determining that jurisdiction exists under that 

exception. We thus vacate the district court’s decision and 

remand the case for further analysis on the applicability of the 

FSIA’s commercial-activity exception. 

I. 

A. 

In 1959, Exxon, then known as Standard Oil, owned 

several subsidiaries in Cuba, including Esso Standard Oil, S.A. 

(Essosa). After Fidel Castro’s rise to power, the Cuban 

government seized files, maps, and other records of geological 

exploration from the offices of Standard Oil’s subsidiaries, and 

the subsidiaries ceased all exploration efforts in Cuba. In 1960, 

the Cuban government issued a series of resolutions 

expropriating property, including all Cuban property owned by 

Essosa. The Cuban government prohibited Essosa from 

operating a refinery, caused it to abandon its Cuba-based 

marketing operations, and forced it to stop operating its service 

stations in Cuba. All told, the Cuban government confiscated 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 3 of 46
4 

the refinery, multiple bulk-products terminals, and over one 

hundred service stations from Standard Oil’s subsidiaries. 

In 1964, Congress established a mechanism for U.S. 

nationals to submit expropriation claims against Cuba to the 

U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (the 

Commission). See 22 U.S.C. § 1643 et seq. Congress tasked 

the Commission with determining “the amount and validity of 

claims by nationals of the United States against the 

Government of Cuba” for “losses resulting from the 

nationalization, expropriation, intervention, or other taking 

of . . . property,” including claims based on “any rights or 

interests . . . owned wholly or partially, directly or indirectly.” 

Id. § 1643b(a). 

In 1969, the Commission certified that Standard Oil had 

“suffered a loss in the total amount of $71,611,002.90 . . . as a 

result of the intervention on July 1, 1960, of the Cuban branch 

of Essosa,” and that Standard Oil was also entitled to interest 

at a rate of 6% per annum. See In the Matter of the Claim of 

Standard Oil Company (F.C.S.C. Decision No. CU-3838 Sept. 

3, 1969) at 9, J.A. 60. Neither Standard Oil nor its successor 

Exxon has received any payment in connection with that 

certified claim. 

B. 

Three decades after the Commission certified Standard 

Oil’s claim, Congress enacted the Cuban Liberty and 

Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996. See 22 U.S.C. § 6021 et 

seq. Title III of the Act creates a private right of action 

enabling U.S. nationals who previously owned property in 

Cuba to sue any “person” who, after a certain date, “traffics in 

property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on 

or after January 1, 1959.” Id. § 6082(a)(1)(A). The Act defines 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 4 of 46
5 

a “person” as “any person or entity, including any agency or 

instrumentality of a foreign state.” Id. § 6023(11). And the 

Act broadly defines “traffics”: one “traffics” in property by 

“knowingly and intentionally” taking one of a long list of 

actions without authorization, such as purchasing, selling, 

controlling, or using an interest in confiscated property, as well 

as “engag[ing] in a commercial activity using or otherwise 

benefiting from confiscated property.” See id.

§ 6023(13)(A)(i)–(iii). 

The Act’s stated purpose in part is to “deter trafficking in 

wrongfully confiscated property” by giving “United States 

nationals who were the victims of these confiscations . . . a 

judicial remedy in the courts of the United States that would 

deny traffickers any profits from economically exploiting 

Castro’s wrongful seizures.” Id. § 6081(11). While Title III 

provides multiple possible measures of damages, it creates a 

rebuttable presumption that a claimant is entitled to the amount 

certified to them by the Commission, in addition to court costs 

and attorneys’ fees. See id. § 6082(a)(1)–(2). Title III also 

provides for treble damages when a claim to property 

previously certified by the Commission is at issue. See id. 

§ 6082(a)(3)(A), (a)(3)(C)(ii). 

The Act authorizes the President to suspend Title III’s 

private right of action for periods of up to six months at a time 

upon determining “that the suspension is necessary to the 

national interests of the United States and will expedite a 

transition to democracy in Cuba.” Id. § 6085(b). From the 

time of the Act’s enactment, Presidents issued sequential sixmonth suspensions until 2019, when President Trump’s 

administration announced that it would no longer suspend the 

right to bring Title III actions. That decision paved the way for 

this suit.

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 5 of 46
6 

C. 

In May 2019, Exxon sued three state-owned defendants: 

(i) Corporación CIMEX S.A. (Cuba), a conglomerate, whom 

we will refer to as CIMEX; (ii) Corporación CIMEX S.A. 

(Panama), whom Exxon alleges is the alter ego of CIMEX; and 

(iii) Unión Cuba-Petróleo (CUPET), Cuba’s state-owned oil 

company. Exxon alleges that the defendants traffic in 

confiscated property by extracting, importing, and refining 

crude oil, operating service stations, and engaging in 

commercial activity involving the confiscated property. See 

Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 127–35, J.A. 47–48. Exxon seeks a 

damages award equaling the amount certified by the 

Commission, as well as pre-judgment interest and treble 

damages. Id. ¶ 137, J.A. 48. 

The defendants moved to dismiss Exxon’s complaint for 

lack of jurisdiction based on foreign sovereign immunity. The 

parties agree that all three defendants are wholly owned by 

Cuba, rendering them agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign 

state. As such, the defendants are “presumptively immune 

from the jurisdiction of United States courts” under the Foreign 

Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq., 

unless one of the FSIA’s exceptions applies. See OBB 

Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. 27, 30–31 (2015) 

(quoting Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355 (1993)). 

At issue here are two FSIA exceptions: the expropriation 

exception and the commercial-activity exception. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), (a)(3). 

The district court denied the motion to dismiss as to 

CIMEX, but deferred ruling and allowed limited jurisdictional 

discovery as to the other two defendants. Exxon Mobil Corp. 

v. Corporación CIMEX S.A., 534 F. Supp. 3d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 

2021). The court began by rejecting Exxon’s argument that, 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 6 of 46
7 

regardless of the FSIA, Title III independently confers 

jurisdiction over the defendants. Id. at 11. The court then 

examined the relevant FSIA exceptions, concluding that the 

commercial-activity exception is satisfied with respect to 

CIMEX but that the expropriation exception is unsatisfied with 

respect to any defendant. Id. at 15–22, 26–29. The court later 

denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. Exxon 

Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX S.A., 567 F. Supp. 3d 21 

(D.D.C. 2021). 

All three defendants now appeal the district court’s denial 

of CIMEX’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Exxon 

cross-appeals the district court’s holdings that the FSIA’s 

expropriation exception is unsatisfied and that Title III does not 

independently confer jurisdiction. 

II. 

While we generally lack jurisdiction to review the denial 

of a motion to dismiss because such an order is interlocutory, 

we have jurisdiction when the dismissal was sought on grounds 

of sovereign immunity (including foreign sovereign 

immunity). See Kilburn v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab 

Jamahiriya, 376 F.3d 1123, 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2004). We thus 

possess jurisdiction over CIMEX’s appeal from the denial of 

its motion for dismissal. As for the other two defendants, the 

district court certified their appeals for interlocutory review as 

a discretionary matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), see Exxon 

Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX S.A., No. 19-cv-1277, 

2021 WL 6805533 (D.D.C. Nov. 23, 2021), and we agree that 

the statutory standards for interlocutory appeal are satisfied. 

And when a district court certifies an order for interlocutory 

appeal under that statute, we can decide “any issue fairly 

included within the certified order,” Yamaha Motor Corp., 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 7 of 46
8 

U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 205 (1996), which here 

includes the issues raised by Exxon in its cross-appeal. 

We thus proceed to examine: (i) Exxon’s argument that, 

regardless of the applicability of any FSIA exception, Title III 

independently establishes jurisdiction over foreign sovereign 

entities like the defendants; (ii) Exxon’s contention that the 

FSIA’s expropriation exception applies in this case; and (iii) 

the defendants’ submission that the FSIA’s commercialactivity exception does not apply. 

A. 

Exxon initially contends that we need not consider the 

applicability of any FSIA exception because Title III 

independently confers jurisdiction over its action against Cubaowned entities. The district court, in our view, correctly 

rejected that contention. 

The terms of the FSIA contemplate that jurisdiction in a 

civil action against a foreign sovereign could arise only under 

the FSIA itself, not under some other statute like Title III. To 

that end, the FSIA prescribes that “a foreign state shall be 

immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States 

and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 

of this chapter.” 28 U.S.C. § 1604 (emphasis added); see also 

28 U.S.C. § 1330(a). Section 1605 then sets out the FSIA’s 

exceptions to the default bar against jurisdiction over foreign 

sovereigns—and we will examine two of those exceptions 

below. And Section 1607, inapposite here, concerns 

counterclaims against foreign states who themselves bring an 

action. 

Given the FSIA’s terms, the Supreme Court has repeatedly 

explained that the “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 8 of 46
9 

‘provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign 

state in the courts of this country.’” Sachs, 577 U.S. at 30 

(emphasis added) (quoting Argentine Republic v. Amerada 

Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 443 (1989)). Said 

otherwise, “Congress established [in the FSIA] a 

comprehensive framework for resolving any claim of [foreign] 

sovereign immunity.” Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 

U.S. 677, 699 (2004) (emphasis added). Accordingly, when 

the Supreme Court recently held that the FSIA does not pertain 

to criminal cases against foreign sovereigns, the Court 

reiterated “the ‘comprehensiveness’ of the statutory scheme as 

to civil matters” like this case. Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. 

United States, 598 U.S. 264, 278 (2023) (quoting Amerada 

Hess, 488 U.S. at 437). 

In short, “[t]hrough the FSIA, Congress enacted a 

comprehensive scheme governing claims of immunity in civil 

actions against foreign states and their instrumentalities.” Id.

at 272–73. Consistent with that understanding, our court has 

described the “FSIA exceptions [as] exhaustive; if none applies 

to the circumstances presented in a case, the foreign state has 

immunity and the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.” Wye 

Oak Tech., Inc. v. Republic of Iraq, 24 F.4th 686, 690 (D.C. 

Cir. 2022); see also Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 77 F.4th 

1077, 1090 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“Absent a pre-existing agreement 

with the United States affecting the scope of sovereign 

immunity, a foreign sovereign is generally immune, unless one 

of the FSIA’s enumerated exceptions applies.”); Valambhia v. 

United Republic of Tanzania, 964 F.3d 1135, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 

2020). 

Exxon nonetheless contends that the FSIA does not set out 

the exclusive mechanism for securing jurisdiction over civil 

suits against foreign sovereigns, and that courts have 

jurisdiction in Title III actions against foreign sovereigns 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 9 of 46
10 

without regard to the FSIA. In support of that proposition, 

Exxon observes that Title III creates liability for “any person 

that . . . traffics in property which was confiscated by the 

Cuban Government,” 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A), and defines a 

“person” as “any person or entity, including any agency or 

instrumentality of a foreign state,” id. § 6023(11) (emphasis 

added). 

It is true that Title III thereby contemplates that its cause 

of action can encompass suits against a foreign state (and its 

agencies or instrumentalities). But Title III nowhere says that 

any Title III action against a foreign state automatically lies 

within a district court’s jurisdiction. Rather, Title III 

harmoniously coexists with the FSIA if it allows for actions 

against foreign sovereign entities who traffic in expropriated 

property in those circumstances in which the FSIA allows for 

jurisdiction over the foreign sovereign—i.e., when an FSIA 

exception applies. 

After all, Title III speaks in terms of establishing 

“liability” for persons (potentially including foreign states) 

who “traffic[] in property which was confiscated by the Cuban 

Government,” id. § 6082(a)(1)(A), without saying anything 

about the existence of jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign. 

The FSIA, by contrast, specifically addresses when a “foreign 

state [is] immune from . . . jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1604. 

And “whether there has been a waiver of sovereign immunity” 

and “whether the source of substantive law upon which the 

claimant relies provides an avenue of relief” are “two 

‘analytically distinct’ inquiries.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 

471, 483–84 (1994) (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 463 

U.S. 206, 218 (1983)). So, while Title III “provides an avenue 

of relief” against persons (potentially including foreign states) 

who traffic in property expropriated by Cuba, that does not tell 

us “whether there has been a waiver of sovereign immunity” 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 10 of 46
11 

enabling the exercise of jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign 

sued under Title III. See id. 

Congress, moreover, was well aware of the FSIA when it 

enacted Title III, so much so that it expressly referenced and 

incorporated FSIA definitions, see 22 U.S.C. § 6023(1), (3), 

and FSIA procedures for service of process, see id.

§ 6082(c)(2). Conversely, when Congress sought to render 

FSIA provisions inapplicable to actions under Title III, 

Congress specifically said so, as it did with respect to the 

FSIA’s delineation of the scope of immunity from attachment 

or execution. See Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 

(LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–114, § 302(e), 110 

Stat. 785, 818 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1611(c)). Title III 

contains no such language referencing—much less departing 

from—the FSIA’s prescription that “a foreign state shall be 

immune from the jurisdiction of the courts . . . except as 

provided in” the FSIA’s enumerated exceptions. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1604. The absence of any such language in Title III is 

significant: “Given the FSIA’s comprehensive and explicit 

regulation of jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns, we cannot 

assume that Congress abrogated these sovereigns’ immunity 

from suit through other statutes” like Title III “without 

mentioning jurisdiction or their immunity expressly.” Doe v. 

Taliban, 101 F.4th 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2024). Indeed, even if Title 

III were ambiguous on whether it abrogates foreign sovereign 

immunity, “any statutory ambiguity concerning a waiver of 

foreign immunity outside the FSIA must be resolved in favor 

of its preservation.” Id. at 12.

Our dissenting colleague suggests that if Congress 

understood the FSIA to apply to Title III, it would not have 

needed to specify the applicability of various FSIA provisions 

in Title III actions. Dissenting Op. 9. As alluded to above, 

however, when enacting Title III, Congress amended the FSIA 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 11 of 46
12 

to provide that, “[n]otwithstanding” the FSIA’s exceptions to a 

foreign sovereign’s immunity from attachment and execution, 

in Title III actions “the property of a foreign state shall be 

immune from attachment and from execution” in certain 

conditions. 28 U.S.C. § 1611(c) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1610). 

Congress would expressly provide that an FSIA exception to 

FSIA-created immunity is inapplicable in Title III actions only 

if Congress understood foreign states to enjoy FSIA immunity 

in Title III actions in the first place. True, that provision 

specifically concerns FSIA execution immunity (as opposed to 

FSIA jurisdictional immunity) in Title III cases. See 

Dissenting Op. 9. But if Congress in fact wanted Title III 

plaintiffs to secure judgments against foreign states without 

needing to surmount FSIA jurisdictional immunity—as our 

dissenting colleague supposes—then it is hard to see why 

Congress still forced those same plaintiffs to overcome FSIA 

execution immunity to collect on those same judgments. 

Nor are we persuaded by our colleague’s reliance on the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Agriculture Rural 

Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, 601 U.S. 42 

(2024), in support of the proposition that Title III’s conferral of 

liability on foreign governments also effected an abrogation of 

their otherwise-applicable jurisdictional immunity under the 

FSIA. See Dissenting Op. 5–7. Kirtz held that the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (FCRA) waived the federal government’s 

(domestic) sovereign immunity because the “‘statute creates a 

cause of action’ and explicitly ‘authorizes suit against a 

government on that claim.’” 601 U.S. at 49 (quoting Fin. 

Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Centro De Periodismo 

Investigativo, Inc. (FOMB), 598 U.S. 339, 347 (2023)). In 

reaching that conclusion, the Court adopted the approach it has 

long taken when considering the sovereign immunity of 

domestic states. See, e.g., Nev. Dep’t of Hum. Res. v. Hibbs, 

538 U.S. 721, 726 (2003); Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 12 of 46
13 

U.S. 62, 73–74 (2000); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 

U.S. 44, 56–57 (1996). 

Our colleague observes that, like the FCRA, Title III also 

imposes liability on any “person” and defines “person” to 

include a government agency or similar entity. See Kirtz, 601 

U.S. at 51; compare 22 U.S.C. § 6023(11) (“any agency or 

instrumentality of a foreign state”), with 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b) 

(“any . . . governmental subdivision or agency, or other 

entity”). But we believe it is mistaken to rely on that similarity 

alone to conclude that Title III likewise both confers a cause of 

action against foreign states and abrogates their sovereign 

immunity. 

To begin with, Kirtz and the line of cases preceding it 

concerned either federal or state sovereign immunity, which 

derive from different sources than does foreign sovereign 

immunity. Whereas federal and state sovereign immunity stem 

from the common law and the Constitution, respectively, see 

Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30, 39 (2021); 

Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 712–13 (1999); Shuler v. United 

States, 531 F.3d 930, 932–33 (D.C. Cir. 2008), foreign 

sovereign immunity is “a matter of grace and comity” extended 

to foreign states by our political branches, Verlinden B.V. v. 

Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 486–88 (1983); Altmann, 

541 U.S. at 689, 696. So a host of “sensitive diplomatic and 

national-security judgments . . . pervade waivers of foreign 

sovereign immunity,” bolstering the need to respect Congress’s 

balancing of those considerations in the provisions of the FSIA. 

Doe v. Taliban, 101 F.4th at 12. Those sorts of foreignrelations concerns do not arise in cases involving federal or 

state sovereign immunity. 

Additionally, when the Supreme Court has held that 

Congress waived or abrogated immunity in cases involving 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 13 of 46
14 

federal or state sovereign immunity, it was not just because the 

statute created a cause of action and authorized suit against a 

government (as Title III also does). Instead, the Court deemed 

immunity waived or abrogated because “recognizing immunity 

would have negated” the conferral of a cause of action against 

governments entirely, as any and all “suits allowed [by the 

statute] against governments would automatically have been 

dismissed” on sovereign-immunity grounds. FOMB, 598 U.S. 

at 348; see Kirtz, 601 U.S. at 49–51. In other words, unless the 

statute creating the cause of action were construed to waive 

sovereign immunity, the conferral of a cause of action against 

the government would have been completely pointless. That is 

not the case here. Our holding that Title III does not 

independently abrogate FSIA immunity does not entirely 

“negate” the Title III cause of action against foreign 

governments: Title III suits against those governments can 

proceed if an FSIA exception applies. 

The upshot is that plaintiffs bringing Title III actions 

against foreign states must satisfy one of the FSIA’s 

exceptions, which is the same condition any litigant seeking to 

sue a foreign sovereign must meet. That approach, contrary to 

Exxon’s submission, does not undermine Title III’s purposes. 

It poses no obstacle to Title III suits against non-sovereign 

parties who traffic in confiscated property. And with respect 

to Title III actions against foreign sovereigns, insofar as 

Congress intended for such suits to go forward only when the 

FSIA allows for jurisdiction, as we believe to be the case, our 

reading of course furthers—rather than frustrates—Congress’s 

intentions. That conclusion respects Congress’s decision to 

craft the FSIA as a “careful balance between respecting the 

immunity historically afforded to foreign sovereigns and 

holding them accountable, in certain circumstances, for their 

actions.” See Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. 202, 

208–09 (2018). 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 14 of 46
15 

B. 

Because Exxon’s Title III action is subject to the FSIA’s 

“baseline principle of immunity for foreign states and their 

instrumentalities,” the action must fit within one of the FSIA’s 

“exceptions to that principle.” Turkiye Halk Bankasi, 598 U.S. 

at 272. Exxon “bears the initial burden to overcome” the 

FSIA’s “presumption of immunity . . . by producing evidence 

that an exception applies.” Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. 

Islamic Republic of Iran, 734 F.3d 1175, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 

2013). The defendants then “bear[] the ultimate burden of 

persuasion to show the exception does not apply.” Id.

Exxon submits that its suit satisfies two FSIA exceptions: 

the expropriation exception and the commercial-activity 

exception. We agree with the district court that the 

expropriation exception is inapplicable. With respect to the 

commercial-activity exception, while the district court 

considered that exception to apply, we remand for further 

assessment of whether CIMEX’s use of expropriated property 

causes the requisite direct effect in the United States. 

Before turning to an examination of each of the two 

exceptions relied on by Exxon, we pause briefly to consider a 

threshold theory advanced by the defendants: that because this 

case arises out of Cuba’s act of expropriating property, the only 

FSIA exception potentially in play is the expropriation 

exception, such that the commercial-activity exception could 

not separately supply a basis for jurisdiction. 

Nothing in the FSIA supports that kind of one-and-onlyone-exception approach. The FSIA sets out a list of exceptions 

enumerating various circumstances in which a “foreign state 

shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts,” and those 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 15 of 46
16 

exceptions are framed as alternatives, separated by the word 

“or.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a). The most natural reading is 

that, if any of those exceptions applies in a given case, 

immunity is overcome. There is no textual (or other) indication 

that a court must first somehow determine which exception is 

the sole one possibly in play in any given case, and then should 

limit itself to examining whether that—and only that—

exception applies. Indeed, it is unclear how a court would 

evaluate which of two (or more) exceptions is most germane 

without proceeding to assess whether each exception’s 

requirements are satisfied—the very inquiry the defendants 

suggest should not happen. 

Our court accordingly has “never held that in order to 

proceed against a foreign government, a claim must fall into 

just one FSIA exception.” De Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 

859 F.3d 1094, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 2017). In fact, with specific 

regard to the expropriation and commercial-activity 

exceptions, we have explained that they involve “altogether 

different questions.” Id. We thus rejected the idea that an 

activity must fall under “either the expropriation exception or 

the commercial activity exception, but not both.” Id. As long 

as “a proper showing is made,” a plaintiff can rely on the 

commercial-activity exception even if a case may involve “the 

taking of property”—i.e., an expropriation. ForemostMcKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F.2d 438, 450 

n.15 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

1. 

We first consider the expropriation exception. As relevant 

here, that exception abrogates immunity in any case “in which 

rights in property taken in violation of international law are in 

issue and . . . that property or any property exchanged for such 

property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 16 of 46
17 

of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is 

engaged in a commercial activity in the United States.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3). “Generally speaking, the exception has 

two requirements: (1) the claim must put in issue ‘rights in 

property taken in violation of international law,’ and (2) there 

must be an adequate connection between the defendant and 

both the expropriated property and some form of commercial 

activity in the United States.” Simon, 77 F.4th at 1091 (quoting 

28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3)). 

The first of those requirements is dispositive here. In 

determining whether a claim involves rights in property that are 

recognized by and taken in violation of international law, 

courts look to the “customary international law of 

expropriation” (if the plaintiff “do[es] not rely on an express 

international agreement”). Id. at 1097. Such a plaintiff thus 

“must show that [its] legal theory ‘has in fact crystallized into 

an international norm that bears the heft of customary law.’” 

Id. (quoting Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co. v. Bolivarian 

Republic of Venezuela, 743 F. App’x 442, 449 (D.C. Cir. 

2018)); see Fed. Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. 169, 

180–81 (2021).

We agree with the district court that Exxon has failed to 

allege any “rights in property taken in violation of international 

law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3). Exxon does not contend that it 

directly owned any of the property seized by Cuba. The seized 

property instead was owned by Exxon’s subsidiary, Essosa. 

Exxon’s asserted property right, then, is its interest, as a 

shareholder and parent of Essosa, in Essosa’s property. And 

under the international law of expropriation, “not every state 

action that has a detrimental impact on a shareholder’s interests 

amounts to an indirect expropriation of the shareholder’s 

ownership rights.” Helmerich, 743 F. App’x at 454. Because 

a “shareholder’s direct rights generally are not implicated by 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 17 of 46
18 

state action that depreciates the value of a corporation’s shares, 

even severely,” shareholders typically cannot establish a 

violation of their rights on the basis of such state action unless 

the action is aimed at the direct rights of the shareholders 

themselves. See id. (quoting Br. for the United States as 

Amicus Curiae at 12–13, Helmerich, 743 F. App’x 442 (No. 

13-7169)). 

Decisions by the International Court of Justice confirm 

that international law generally does not recognize a 

shareholder’s right in property owned by the corporation. As 

that court has explained, there is “a firm distinction between 

the separate entity of the company and that of the shareholder,” 

and “[s]o long as the company is in existence[,] the shareholder 

has no right to the corporate assets.” The Barcelona Traction, 

Light & Power Co. (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, 1970 I.C.J. 

3, 35, ¶ 41 (Feb. 5). That understanding governs even in the 

case of a shareholder who is the sole owner of the subsidiary. 

See Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic 

Republic of the Congo), Judgment, 2010 I.C.J. 640, 688, ¶ 151, 

689–90, ¶¶ 155–56 (Nov. 30). 

Exxon insists that other sources of international law 

recognize its shareholder interest in Essosa’s assets as a 

property right. The scattered authorities Exxon cites, however, 

are secondary to the judgments of the International Court of 

Justice, which are “accorded great weight” in understanding 

the content of international law. See Restatement (Third) of the 

Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 103 cmt. b (Am. 

L. Inst. 1987) (Third Restatement). At any rate, even on their 

own terms, the sources Exxon cites do not support its position. 

Two of the sources—decisions by the Iran-United States 

Claims Tribunal and investor-state arbitration decisions—tell 

us little about the customary international law of expropriation. 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 18 of 46
19 

The Tribunal’s decisions involve “specific, bargained-for 

agreements” subject to governing law distinct from customary 

international law. See Helmerich, 743 F. App’x at 452 (citing 

Third Restatement § 102(2)). One Tribunal decision, for 

example, explains that the State Department had specifically 

bargained with Iran for a broader definition of property that 

extended to interests in property. See SEDCO, Inc. v. Nat’l 

Iranian Oil Co. & Islamic Republic of Iran, 15 Iran-U.S. Cl. 

Trib. Rep. 23 (1987), 1987 WL 503885, at *8 n.9. Investorstate arbitration decisions likewise involve negotiated Bilateral 

Investment Treaties whose terms do not necessarily reflect the 

parameters of customary international law. See, e.g., Total S.A. 

v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, 

Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, ¶ 78 (Aug. 25, 2006) 

(distinguishing bilateral investment treaties from customary 

international law). Exxon’s reliance on a third source—the 

Commission’s certification of Exxon’s claim—falls short for 

similar reasons: Congress authorized the Commission to 

certify losses due to the expropriation of “property including 

any rights or interests therein owned wholly or partially, 

directly or indirectly,” see 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a), a definition 

of property that sweeps substantially broader than the one 

recognized by our decision in Helmerich and by the 

International Court of Justice’s decisions.

To be sure, there is an exception to the general rule under 

customary international law that shareholders lack a property 

right in the assets of entities in which they hold ownership 

interests. As we recognized in Helmerich, if a state’s action 

“‘is aimed at the direct rights of the shareholder as such,’ it can 

form the basis for an international expropriation claim.” 743 

F. App’x at 454 (quoting Barcelona Traction, 1970 I.C.J. at 36, 

¶ 47). That can occur if the state action “completely destroy[s] 

the beneficial and productive value of the shareholder’s 

ownership of their company,” “leaving the shareholder with 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 19 of 46
20 

shares that have been rendered useless.” Id. (quoting Supp. Br. 

for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 12, Helmerich, 743 

F. App’x 442 (No. 13-7169)). In Helmerich, for example, we 

concluded that a parent company had adequately alleged that a 

foreign sovereign had taken its rights in property in violation 

of international law because the takings, while aimed at the 

subsidiary, had destroyed the entire value of the parent 

company’s shares. Id. at 455. 

That exception is inapplicable here. Unlike in Helmerich, 

the district court here found undisputed evidence that Essosa 

has continued its operations. The defendants produced 

documents demonstrating that Essosa continued to hold annual 

shareholder meetings and Board of Directors meetings, 

operated fuel stations as of 2011, and began operating under a 

different name in 2012 that is listed as in good standing with 

the Public Registry of Panama. See Frank Decl. ¶¶ 2–19, J.A. 

323–33. Exxon has not alleged any clear error in the district 

court’s factual findings, and there is no evidence that Exxon’s 

shares in Essosa were “rendered useless,” Helmerich, 743 F. 

App’x at 454, by Cuba’s expropriation of Essosa’s property. 

And while Exxon contends in its reply brief in our court that 

Cuba in fact destroyed the entire value of Essosa’s operations, 

we have no occasion to consider that argument: Exxon 

forfeited the argument twice over by failing to raise it in the 

district court or in our court in its opening brief. See Bryant v. 

Gates, 532 F.3d 888, 898 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Abdullah v. Obama, 

753 F.3d 193, 199–200 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 

Finally, our dissenting colleague suggests that the 

foregoing analysis is misplaced because the U.S. Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission long ago effectively settled 

that Exxon itself has a legally cognizable interest in the 

expropriated property. See Dissenting Op. 8. Title III requires 

that if the Commission certifies “a claim to ownership of [an] 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 20 of 46
21 

interest” in property, courts “shall accept” that certification “as 

conclusive proof of ownership of [that] interest.” 22 U.S.C. 

§ 6083(a)(1). And because the Commission determined that 

Cuba unlawfully took Exxon’s property rights, our colleague 

reasons, we are bound to treat Exxon’s ownership of those 

property rights as conclusive of Exxon’s property interests. We 

do not see things the same way. 

It is true that the statute establishing the Commission 

charged it with determining “the amount and validity of 

claims” “in accordance with applicable substantive law, 

including international law.” 22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a). But the 

statute also directs the Commission to determine claims “for 

losses resulting from the . . . expropriation [of] . . . property 

including any rights or interests therein owned wholly or 

partially, directly or indirectly at the time by nationals of the 

United States.” Id. (emphasis added). As the district court 

observed, the Commission thus evaluated property interests 

much broader than those recognized under customary 

international law. See Exxon, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 29. And there 

is no evidence that the Commission purported to evaluate 

property claims based on customary international law. The 

Commission’s certification, then, cannot resolve whether the 

expropriation exception applies. 

In sum, because Exxon does not assert a right recognized 

by the international law of property, it cannot satisfy the 

expropriation exception. Exxon submits that Cuba not only 

expropriated property but intentionally discriminated against 

U.S. nationals in doing so, thereby ostensibly running afoul of 

international law’s prohibition on discriminatory takings. But 

even if that were so, Exxon still could not meet the 

expropriation exception’s requirements: a successful claim of 

a discriminatory taking of property requires both 

discrimination and a taking of property in violation of 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 21 of 46
22 

international law. The latter is absent here for the reasons 

explained. 

2. 

The commercial-activity exception—the “most significant 

of the FSIA’s exceptions”—strips sovereign immunity on the 

basis of a foreign sovereign’s commercial activities. See 

Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 611 

(1992); 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2). The exception abrogates 

immunity in any case 

in which the action is based upon a commercial 

activity carried on in the United States by the 

foreign state; or upon an act performed in the 

United States in connection with a commercial 

activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon 

an act outside the territory of the United States 

in connection with a commercial activity of the 

foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a 

direct effect in the United States. 

28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2). At issue here is the third clause, which 

withdraws immunity when a suit is “(1) ‘based . . . upon an act 

outside the territory of the United States’; (2) that was taken ‘in 

connection with a commercial activity’ of [the defendant] 

outside this country; and (3) that ‘cause[d] a direct effect in the 

United States.’” Weltover, 504 U.S. at 611 (first and third 

alterations in original) (quoting id.). 

There is no dispute that Exxon’s suit fulfills the first 

requirement, as CIMEX’s alleged trafficking occurs in Cuba. 

The parties dispute whether Exxon’s suit satisfies the second 

and third requirements—namely, whether CIMEX’s actions 

are taken in connection with a commercial activity and whether 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 22 of 46
23 

they cause a direct effect in the United States. We conclude 

that Exxon’s suit meets the second requirement because 

trafficking in confiscated property for purposes of Title III 

constitutes commercial activity under the FSIA. We vacate and 

remand, however, for the district court to further assess 

whether, under the third requirement, CIMEX’s actions cause 

a direct effect in the United States. 

a. 

In applying the commercial-activity exception, “[w]e 

begin our analysis by identifying the particular conduct on 

which the [plaintiff’s] action is ‘based’ for purposes of the 

Act.” Nelson, 507 U.S. at 356. We look to “the ‘basis’ or 

‘foundation’ for a claim,” or the “gravamen of the complaint,” 

which generally accounts for “those elements . . . that, if 

proven, would entitle a plaintiff to relief.” Sachs, 577 U.S. at 

33–34 (alteration in original) (quoting Nelson, 507 U.S. at 

357). 

The relevant clause of the commercial-activity exception 

requires that the gravamen of the complaint bear a connection 

to “commercial activity,” which the FSIA defines as “a regular 

course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial 

transaction or act.” 28 U.S.C. § 1603(d). The statute further 

instructs that the “commercial character of an activity shall be 

determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct 

or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its 

purpose.” Id.; see also Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614. While the 

statute’s definition “leaves the critical term ‘commercial’ 

largely undefined,” the following principle guides our inquiry: 

“when a foreign government acts, not as regulator of a market, 

but in the manner of a private player within it, the foreign 

sovereign’s actions are ‘commercial’ within the meaning of the 

FSIA.” Weltover, 504 U.S. at 612, 614. In Weltover, for 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 23 of 46
24 

example, the Supreme Court concluded that because sovereign 

bonds are “garden-variety debt instruments” that could “be 

held by private parties,” could “be traded on the international 

market,” and “promise[d] a future stream of cash income,” 

Argentina’s issuance of those bonds constituted commercial 

activity under the FSIA. Id. at 615. 

The gravamen of Exxon’s suit is plainly connected to 

commercial activity. Exxon alleges that CIMEX processes 

remittances (transfers of money) sent by U.S. residents to Cuba 

and that it operates service stations that sell gas and consumer 

goods. Running retail and financial-services operations is not 

uniquely sovereign activity, as any private actor can also 

engage in those functions. In performing those activities, then, 

the Cuban government acts not as a “regulator of a market,” 

but rather “in the manner of a private player.” See id. at 614. 

The defendants resist that conclusion by contending that 

the gravamen of Exxon’s suit is the original expropriation and 

possession of the confiscated property rather than the 

subsequent commercial activity of processing remittances and 

selling goods. According to the defendants, allowing later 

commercial use of confiscated property to meet the FSIA’s 

commercial-activity exception would enable an end-run 

around the expropriation exception by permitting plaintiffs to 

shoehorn suits about sovereign expropriations into the 

commercial-activity exception. 

The fact that Cuba’s antecedent expropriation and the 

defendants’ possession of Exxon’s property may have enabled 

the challenged commercial activity, however, does not 

diminish the applicability of the commercial-activity 

exception. The Supreme Court has repeatedly distinguished 

enabling conduct preceding a claim from activity forming the 

basis of the claim. 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 24 of 46
25 

Nelson, for instance, involved tort claims for injuries a 

person sustained from a foreign sovereign’s imprisonment and 

torture of him. 507 U.S. at 353–54. He alleged that the 

defendants had retaliated against him for reporting safety 

violations at a state-owned hospital where he worked. Id. at 

362. The Court explained that, even if the defendants had 

engaged in commercial activity when they “recruited [the 

plaintiff] for work at the hospital, signed an employment 

contract with him, and subsequently employed him,” it was the 

subsequent “torts, and not the arguably commercial activities 

that preceded their commission,” that “form[ed] the basis” of 

the suit. Id. at 358. 

Similarly, in Sachs, a person bought a European rail pass 

while in the United States and later suffered injuries when 

attempting to board a train using that pass in Austria. 577 U.S. 

at 29. The Court assessed whether, for purposes of the 

commercial-activity exception, the claim was “based upon a 

commercial activity carried on in the United States by [a] 

foreign state.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1605(a)(2)). In rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the 

rail’s sale of the pass to her in the United States satisfied the 

exception, the Court again separated the antecedent 

commercial activity from the subsequent, allegedly injurious 

activity, concluding that the gravamen of the suit occurred in 

Austria, not the United States. Id. at 35–36. 

As those decisions instruct, the inquiry turns on the 

specific conduct forming the basis of the plaintiff’s action. So 

here, even if Cuba’s original expropriation and the defendants’ 

current possession were in some sense necessary to enable the 

subsequent trafficking, the gravamen of Exxon’s action under 

Title III—the trafficking—is commercial activity. A court 

must “zero[] in on the core of [the plaintiff’s] suit,” that is, the 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 25 of 46
26 

“acts that actually injured” the plaintiff. Id. at 35. Here, then, 

we focus on the core of the suit brought by Exxon: the 

commercial use of confiscated property, which Congress has 

deemed actionable under Title III. 

Our decisions in Rong v. Liaoning Province Government, 

452 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and Ivanenko v. Yanukovich, 

995 F.3d 232 (D.C. Cir. 2021), lend no support to the 

defendants. While both decisions held that the plaintiffs’ suits 

did not satisfy the commercial-activity exception’s 

requirements, the core of the suit in those cases, unlike here, 

was an antecedent act of expropriation, not subsequent 

commercial activity. See Rong, 452 F.3d at 887; Ivanenko, 995 

F.3d at 239. The defendants’ reliance on various decisions 

from foreign tribunals fails for similar reasons: the claims in 

those cases focused on the wrongful expropriation of property 

rather than the unlawful commercial use of the property. 

The defendants relatedly submit that the alleged 

trafficking is inseparable from Cuba’s exercise of sovereign 

authority to nationalize property, publicly control industry, and 

establish a socialist economy, ostensibly rendering the 

trafficking non-commercial in nature. The terms of the FSIA, 

though, prescribe that the “commercial character of an activity 

shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of 

conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference 

to its purpose.” 28 U.S.C. § 1603(d). It is therefore irrelevant 

whether “the foreign government is acting . . . with the aim of 

fulfilling uniquely sovereign objectives”; “[r]ather, the issue is 

whether the particular actions that the foreign state performs 

(whatever the motive behind them) are the type of actions by 

which a private party engages in trade and traffic or 

commerce.” Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614 (internal quotation 

marks omitted); see also Nelson, 507 U.S. at 360 (“[W]hether 

a state acts ‘in the manner of’ a private party is a question of 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 26 of 46
27 

behavior, not motivation.”). And because private parties can 

equally engage in the types of actions in which Exxon contends 

the defendants are engaged, the defendants’ challenged actions 

are properly characterized as taken “in connection with a 

commercial activity.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2).

b. 

To fit within the commercial-activity exception, CIMEX’s 

trafficking activity not only must bear a “connection with a 

commercial activity” in Cuba but must also “cause[] a direct 

effect in the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2). “[A]n 

effect is ‘direct’ if it follows ‘as an immediate consequence of 

the defendant’s . . . activity.’” Weltover, 504 U.S. at 618 

(second alteration in original) (citation omitted). Although 

“jurisdiction may not be predicated on purely trivial effects in 

the United States,” there is no “unexpressed requirement of 

‘substantiality’ or ‘foreseeability.’” Id.

The district court concluded that CIMEX causes a direct 

effect in the United States in two ways: first, by operating a 

remittances business that enables transfers of money from the 

United States to recipients in Cuba; and second, by selling 

goods imported from the United States at its convenience 

stores. We agree with Exxon and the district court that the 

types of effects Exxon alleges—outflows of money from the 

United States and purchases of U.S. goods—can constitute 

direct effects in the United States. Still, we vacate and remand 

for the district court to further assess whether CIMEX “causes” 

those effects and whether the effects are sufficiently “direct.”

i. 

We first consider CIMEX’s remittances business. A 

remittance is initiated when a U.S. resident designates a 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 27 of 46
28 

recipient in Cuba and makes a payment to Western Union. 

Valmaña Decl. ¶ 13(a)–(b), J.A. 195. The recipient in Cuba 

can then collect the remittance at any of 502 Western Union 

locations in the country. Id. ¶¶ 12, 13(d)–(e), J.A. 194, 196. 

Exxon estimates that Cuba received $3.6 billion in remittances 

in 2018, and that 90% of those remittances came from the 

United States. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 112, J.A. 43. CIMEX 

operates service stations that process remittance payments 

from the United States through Western Union, and of the 502 

Western Union locations in Cuba, 276 are operated by CIMEX 

and 66 are specifically located at CIMEX’s service stations. 

Valmaña Decl. ¶ 12, J.A. 194. 

Exxon contends that CIMEX’s remittances business 

causes a direct effect in the United States by creating a market 

for remittances and drawing money from the United States to 

Cuba. We agree that causing a non-trivial outflow of money 

from the United States to Cuba would amount to a “direct 

effect” under the FSIA. In Weltover, the Supreme Court 

concluded that Argentina’s unilateral rescheduling of certain 

bond payments caused a “direct effect” in the United States. 

504 U.S. at 618–19. The bondholders had “designated their 

accounts in New York as the place of payment” and Argentina 

had already “made some interest payments into those accounts 

before announcing that it was rescheduling the payments.” Id. 

at 619. The Court held that Argentina’s “rescheduling of those 

obligations necessarily had a ‘direct effect’ in the United 

States” because “[m]oney that was supposed to have been 

delivered to a New York bank for deposit was not 

forthcoming.” Id. Weltover indicates that a change in the flow 

of money in the United States constitutes a direct effect. 

Our court has similarly found the existence of a direct 

effect when a defendant alters the flow of money within, out 

of, or into the United States. In one case, we found a direct 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 28 of 46
29 

effect in the United States when “an American corporation 

transferr[ed] $28,000 from a New York bank to the Somali 

government’s D.C. bank.” Transamerican S.S. Corp. v. Somali 

Democratic Republic, 767 F.2d 998, 1004 (D.C. Cir. 1985). In 

another case, the termination of a contract constituted a direct 

effect because “revenues that would otherwise have been 

generated in the United States were ‘not forthcoming.’” Cruise 

Connections Charter Mgmt. 1, LP v. Att’y Gen. of Canada, 600 

F.3d 661, 665 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Weltover, 504 U.S. at 

619); see also I.T. Consultants, Inc. v. Republic of Pakistan, 

351 F.3d 1184, 1188–90 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (finding direct effect 

when defendants failed to make promised payment into 

Virginia bank account). Here, Exxon claims that money that 

otherwise would have remained in the United States was 

transferred to Cuba in the form of remittances. Evidence that 

CIMEX caused such transfers would demonstrate a direct 

effect in the United States. 

The defendants argue that the effect is indirect because it 

rests on the intervening decisions of multiple third parties: 

people in the United States must decide to send remittances to 

Cuba through Western Union, and the intended recipients in 

Cuba must decide to receive the remittances at stations 

operated by CIMEX. We have explained that a direct effect is 

one that “has no intervening element, but, rather, flows in a 

straight line without deviation or interruption.” Princz v. Fed. 

Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1994) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And in the 

defendants’ view, the integral role of third-party transferors 

and recipients means the effect of CIMEX’s remittances 

business in the United States is not “an immediate consequence 

of the defendant’s . . . activity.” Weltover, 504 U.S. at 618 

(alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 29 of 46
30 

When the involvement of third parties is an entirely 

foreseeable (and even intended) consequence of the 

defendants’ relevant actions, however, it will not stand in the 

way of concluding that the defendants’ activity causes a direct 

effect in the United States. In EIG Energy Fund XIV, L.P. v. 

Petroleo Brasileiro, S.A., 894 F.3d 339, 342–43 (D.C. Cir. 

2018), a Brazilian state-owned oil company secured funding 

for an oil exploration project from various U.S. investors 

including EIG Management Company, LLC. After an 

extensive bribery scheme came to light, “skittish lenders 

withdrew their support,” rendering EIG’s shares in the project 

worthless. Id. at 343. EIG brought fraud-related claims against 

the state-owned oil company and other defendants, asserting 

direct effects based on the concealment of fraud and 

mismanagement of its money. Id. at 343, 345. We held that 

the suit satisfied the commercial-activity exception, rejecting 

the defendants’ argument that it was the third-party lenders’ 

decisions to withdraw their support, rather than the defendants’ 

fraud, that caused the direct effect in the United States. Id. at 

346. We refused to adopt a “highly restrictive causation 

requirement under which contributing factors readily and 

predictably caused by the defendant’s same act would preclude 

jurisdiction.” Id. (emphasis added). 

As in EIG, third parties’ decisions to send and receive 

remittances originating from the United States are “readily and 

predictably caused by” CIMEX’s operation of a remittances 

business. An entity that operates a remittances business knows 

full well—and indeed, intends—that people in one location 

will use the service to send money to recipients in another 

location. And just as in EIG, CIMEX appears to have 

“specifically targeted” parties in the United States. See id. at 

342. In part due to U.S. regulations, the only remittances 

“currently being paid out in Cuba” via Western Union are 

remittances that originated in the United States. See Valmaña 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 30 of 46
31 

Decl. ¶ 14, J.A. 199. As such, “CIMEX’s entire remittance 

business is aimed at bringing money from the United States 

into Cuba.” Exxon, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 20. For the same 

reasons, the presence of FINCIMEX, a third-party agent who 

acts as an intermediary between CIMEX and Western Union, 

does not preclude finding that CIMEX caused direct effects in 

the United States: FINCIMEX and CIMEX contract with each 

other for the very purpose of carrying out a remittances 

business. See Valmaña Decl. ¶ 6, J.A. 193. 

Contrary to the defendants’ suggestion, the relevant acts 

can cause a direct effect in the United States regardless of 

whether the “locus of the tort” or a “legally significant act” 

occurred in the United States. A “foreign locus does not always 

mean that a tort causes no ‘direct effect’ in the United States.” 

EIG, 894 F.3d at 347. Nor must the alleged direct effect cause 

an injury or a harm, as “[n]othing in the FSIA requires that the 

‘direct effect in the United States’ harm the plaintiff.” Cruise 

Connections, 600 F.3d at 666 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2)). 

And although the defendants note that we have often found 

direct effects when the parties had been engaged in commercial 

dealings, a preexisting relationship of that kind is not a 

prerequisite to finding a direct effect. 

The defendants, though, do raise one point that precludes 

us from deciding at this stage that CIMEX’s processing of 

remittances causes a direct effect in the United States in the 

form of outflows of money from the United States to Cuba. 

The defendants have provided evidence that, of the 66 stations 

CIMEX uses to process remittances, a maximum of four to ten 

stations sit on confiscated property formerly owned by Essosa. 

Valmaña Decl. ¶ 12, J.A. 195. Because Title III makes the 

defendants liable only for trafficking in confiscated property, 

the pertinent inquiry is whether CIMEX’s remittances 

operations at the four to ten stations located on former Essosa 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 31 of 46
32 

property cause a direct effect in the United States—not whether 

CIMEX’s entire remittances business does so. 

For example, it is possible that precisely the same amount 

of remittances would be sent from the United States to Cuba 

even if those four to ten stations did not exist. There is no 

evidence in the record about any of those individual stations, 

where they are located, or how much they process in 

remittances. Given that there are 502 Western Union locations 

in Cuba, it is possible that, even without the four to ten stations 

on former Essosa property, Americans would still send the 

same amount of money and Cuban recipients would still 

withdraw the same amount of money from other readily 

accessible stations. If that were the case, one would be hard 

pressed to conclude that CIMEX’s operation of a remittances 

business at those stations “causes a direct effect in the United 

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2). The effect would be the same 

regardless of those stations. Cf. Univ. of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. 

Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 346–47 (2013) (noting that an action 

cannot be a but-for “cause of an event if the particular event 

would have occurred without” the action (citation omitted)). 

Exxon maintains that the limited number of stations is 

irrelevant because the amount of remittances those stations 

likely process exceeds the threshold of triviality under 

Weltover. But whether an effect is too trivial to count as a 

direct effect under the FSIA is a distinct question from whether 

a defendant’s activity can be said to cause that effect, trivial or 

not. If, as things currently stand, there are readily available 

substitutes for the processing of remittances at those four to ten 

stations—for instance, other Western Union sites in the 

immediate vicinity—the conduct of the business at those 

stations may not ultimately cause any outflow of money from 

the United States that would not already occur. Without any 

examination of that issue, we cannot say whether CIMEX’s 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 32 of 46
33 

conduct of a remittances business on confiscated property in 

fact “causes a direct effect in the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1605(a)(2). 

We vacate and remand for the district court to assess 

whether CIMEX’s conduct of a remittances business at the four 

to ten stations operated on former Essosa property, as opposed 

to CIMEX’s remittances activity writ large, causes a direct 

effect in the United States. We do not suggest that courts 

invariably must splinter jurisdictional inquiries under the FSIA 

and conduct them parcel-by-parcel. But here, the relevant 

inquiry concerns only the four to ten stations on former Essosa 

property because Title III makes it unlawful to traffic in 

confiscated property, limiting the relevant jurisdictional 

inquiry to those sites. Our decision should not be understood 

to express any prediction in either direction on whether 

CIMEX’s remittances business at the four to ten stations causes 

a direct effect in the United States. Because the district court 

has not examined that question, we remand for it to conduct the 

inquiry and reach a conclusion in the first instance. 

ii. 

In addition to CIMEX’s remittances business, Exxon 

submits that CIMEX’s sale of imported U.S. goods at its 

stations satisfies the commercial-activity exception. 

According to Exxon, CIMEX’s sale of those goods causes a 

direct effect in the United States by stimulating demand for 

U.S. goods and by moving capital into and goods out of the 

United States. 

We agree with Exxon that an inflow of capital and an 

outflow of goods constitutes a direct effect in the United States. 

The defendants respond, however, that the way in which 

CIMEX obtains imported goods from the U.S. precludes 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 33 of 46
34 

concluding that CIMEX caused the effect in the United States. 

Specifically, rather than directly importing goods from the 

United States, CIMEX orders products through another Cuban 

company, Alimport, which exercises sole discretion in 

determining the source location of the goods it sends on to 

CIMEX. In the defendants’ view, Alimport’s role as a thirdparty intermediary presents an “intervening element” that 

prevents any effect in the United States from “flow[ing] in a 

straight line without deviation or interruption” from CIMEX’s 

sales. Princz, 26 F.3d at 1172 (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Alimport is the exclusive importer in Cuba of foodstuffs 

from the United States, meaning that all U.S. goods on 

CIMEX’s shelves are procured through Alimport. See Second 

Valmaña Decl. ¶ 6, J.A. 2039–40. Alimport appears to make 

entirely independent decisions about the source country of the 

goods it imports. The defendants represent that CIMEX “does 

not give any direction to Alimport about the country from 

where the products should be sourced, the companies from 

which the products should be purchased, or the brands of a 

product,” and Alimport “decides all this on its own” and 

“not . . . as an agent of CIMEX (Cuba).” Id., J.A. 2040. A 

report submitted into the record indicates that Alimport “has 

wide discretion to choose the foreign companies and countries 

from which to make food purchases.” U.S. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, U.S. Agricultural Sales to Cuba: Certain Economic 

Effects of U.S. Restrictions at 1-5 (2007), J.A. 1604. 

Considerations that influence Alimport’s buying decisions 

include economic factors, such as “the availability of bartering 

and credit financing,” “[p]urchase price, transportation cost, 

quality, and delivery considerations,” along with noneconomic factors such as “political motivations.” Id. at 2-13, 

J.A. 1620. The report even suggests that Alimport may decline 

to source from the United States altogether if U.S. “laws or 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 34 of 46
35 

regulations” make it “unavailable” as a supplier. See id. That 

suggestion indicates that Alimport’s decision to import goods 

for CIMEX from the United States is not a foregone 

conclusion. 

To be sure, CIMEX and Alimport agree on the specific 

types and amounts of products that Alimport will procure for 

CIMEX. See Exxon, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 21 (citing Second 

Valmaña Decl. ¶ 6, J.A. 2040). But the record indicates that 

CIMEX never specifies that Alimport must buy goods from the 

United States, meaning Alimport’s decision to purchase U.S. 

goods is unrelated to any direction from CIMEX. The 

defendants’ declaration states that CIMEX does not specify 

even the “brands of a product” when placing an order through 

Alimport. Second Valmaña Decl. ¶ 6, J.A. 2040. On that 

understanding, Alimport is the key player causing a “direct 

effect in the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), and the 

purchase of U.S. goods at CIMEX stations is not an “immediate 

consequence of” CIMEX’s “activity.” See Weltover, 504 U.S. 

at 618 (citation omitted). Insofar as the sale of U.S. goods by 

CIMEX occurs only because Alimport opts to purchase the 

products from the United States without input or 

encouragement from CIMEX, CIMEX would not cause the 

direct effect in the United States. 

CIMEX, however, might still be said to cause a direct 

effect in the United States if it has sufficient and continuing 

awareness that the goods it receives from Alimport originate 

from the United States—in other words, if CIMEX knows it is 

all but ordering U.S. goods when it places an order with 

Alimport. Such knowledge would suggest that, by ordering 

goods through Alimport, CIMEX causes a “direct effect” by 

inducing the purchase of what it knows and anticipates would 

be U.S. goods, even if CIMEX does not specifically request the 

country of origin. The subsequent inflow of money, outflow of 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 35 of 46
36 

goods, and stimulation of demand in the United States would 

then be fairly characterized an “immediate consequence” of 

CIMEX’s decisions to continue procuring goods through 

Alimport and to sell those goods on confiscated property. See 

id.; cf. Goodman Holdings v. Rafidain Bank, 26 F.3d 1143, 

1147 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Wald, J., concurring) (suggesting that a 

failure to make a payment could have a direct effect in the 

United States if there were a “longstanding consistent 

customary practice” of payments using New York bank 

accounts). For example, if Alimport supplies CIMEX with 

U.S. goods year after year, and if CIMEX knows and 

continuously approves of that pattern, CIMEX would be unable 

to insulate itself from the jurisdiction of our courts by invoking 

Alimport’s role as an intermediary. 

On remand, the district court may find evidence that 

CIMEX has sufficient awareness that the goods it sells at its 

stations originate from the United States such that Alimport’s 

role as a third party does not preclude finding direct effects 

caused by CIMEX. The district court did not engage in that 

kind of analysis, though, and we again leave it to that court to 

conduct the inquiry in the first instance. 

* * * * * 

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court’s 

denial of CIMEX’s motion to dismiss and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

So ordered.

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 36 of 46
RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting: 

In February 1996, the Cuban military shot down two small

civilian planes on a humanitarian mission off the coast of Cuba.

Three U.S. citizens and one permanent U.S. resident from Cuba

were killed. Outraged, Congress passed and President Clinton

signed into law the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity

(LIBERTAD) Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-114, 110 Stat. 785

(codified at 22 U.S.C. §§ 6021 et seq.).

Passage of this legislation established a specific,

independent, and exclusive cause of action for American

nationals whose property the Cuban government had confiscated

decades earlier. The liability of those trafficking in such

property does not depend on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities

Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq. The majority holds otherwise. I

therefore dissent. 

In 1960 the Cuban government, then under Fidel Castro,

issued an edict nationalizing all “property and enterprises . . .

owned by the juridical persons who are nationals of the United

States.” See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 307 F.2d

845, 849 (2d Cir. 1962) (quoting Exec. Power Resol. No. 1

(1960), Cuba), rev’d, 376 U.S. 398 (1964); see also 22 U.S.C.

§ 6081(3). At the time U.S. nationals “either owned or held

significant investments in Cuba’s electric company, its telephone

system, a wide variety of mining operations, the petroleum

sector, hotels, sugar and other agricultural products,” and more. 

David Kaye, The Helms-Burton Act: Title III and International

Claims, 20 HASTINGS INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 729, 730 (1997).

Four years later, in 1964, Congress responded with the

Cuban Claims Act, authorizing the U.S. Foreign Claims

Settlement Commission to determine the amount and validity of

“claims by nationals of the United States against the Government

of Cuba . . . for losses resulting from the nationalization,

expropriation, intervention, or other taking of . . . property . . .

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 37 of 46
2

owned wholly or partially, directly or indirectly” by U.S.

nationals “at the time” of the taking. Pub. L. No. 88-666

§ 503(a), 78 Stat. 1110, 1110-11 (1964) (codified as amended at

22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a)). The Commission ultimately certified

$1.9 billion in claims. 

With respect to Exxon’s claim, the Commission determined,

“in accordance with applicable substantive law, including

international law,” that Exxon (then called Standard Oil) had 1

suffered a loss of $71,611,002.90 resulting from Cuba’s

confiscation of all property in Cuba held by Exxon’s whollyowned subsidiary. See Standard Oil Co., F.C.S.C. Decision No.

CU-0938, Claim No. CU-3838, at 9 (Sept. 3, 1969). The

Commission certified Exxon’s claim in that amount, plus annual

interest of 6 percent beginning on July 1, 1960, “to the date of

settlement.” Id. at 10.

But in the decades after Castro’s seizure of property, U.S.

claimants like Exxon had no effective means of obtaining

compensation. Title III of the LIBERTAD Act in 1996 filled

that gap. Title III created a cause of action; required courts to

accept the Commission’s certification of a claim as “conclusive

proof of ownership of an interest in property”; and provided

federal courts with a jurisdictional basis for such actions by

stripping Cuban instrumentalities of sovereign immunity. 22

U.S.C. §§ 6082, 6083(a)(1). 

Title III’s civil remedy is against those who “traffic[]” in the

confiscated property. 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A). Its purpose

was not only “to provide protection against wrongful

confiscations” of the property of U.S. nationals, id. § 6081(10),

22 U.S.C. § 1643b(a). See also 22 U.S.C. § 1623(a)(2)(B),

1

which requires the Commission to apply the “applicable principles of

international law, justice, and equity.”

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 38 of 46
3

but also to discourage “transactions involving [this] confiscated

property, and in so doing to deny the Cuban regime the capital

generated by such ventures.” H. Rep. No. 104-202, pt. 1, at 39

(1995); see also 22 U.S.C. §§ 6022, 6081(6). After a series of

suspensions, see 22 U.S.C. § 6085(b), Title III finally went into

effect on May 2, 2019. Exxon filed its lawsuit on the same day.

2

The question raised in this appeal is framed as whether there

is subject-matter jurisdiction over Exxon’s suit. The majority

holds that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)—not

Title III—provides the answer. As a result, unless Exxon

satisfies one of the exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity in

the FSIA, the defendants, as instrumentalities of Cuba, are

“immune from the jurisdiction” of federal and state courts. 28

U.S.C. § 1604. 

That mistaken conclusion rests in large measure on Supreme

Court opinions stating, in one way or another, that the FSIA is

“the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in

the courts of this country.” Majority Op. at 8–9 (quoting OBB

Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. 27, 30 (2015))

(emphasis omitted). It is true that the Supreme Court and this

court have repeatedly referred to the exclusive nature of the

FSIA. But in each case Title III did not apply for at least one of

three reasons. One, it did not exist at the time. Argentine

Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 443

(1989). Two, it was not in effect because the President had

suspended its cause of action. Sachs, 577 U.S. at 30; Republic

Title III authorizes the President to suspend its provisions for

2

renewable six-month periods if he determines that suspension would

advance U.S. interests and expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba. 

22 U.S.C. § 6085(b)–(c). Beginning with President Clinton, each

President continually suspended Title III, until President Trump let the

suspensions lapse.

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 39 of 46
4

of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 699 (2004). Or three, the

plaintiffs’ claims did not arise out of or relate to Cuba’s

confiscations. Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 598

U.S. 264, 278 (2023); Doe v. Taliban, 101 F.4th 1, 10 (D.C. Cir.

2024); Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 77 F.4th 1077, 1090 (D.C.

Cir. 2023), cert. granted, No. 23-867, __ S. Ct. ___, 2024 WL

3089537, at *1 (U.S. June 24, 2024); Wye Oak Tech., Inc. v.

Republic of Iraq, 24 F.4th 686, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2022); Valambhia

v. United Republic of Tanzania, 964 F.3d 1135, 1139 (D.C. Cir.

2020). 

Not one of these opinions mentions Title III. When

“questions of jurisdiction” are “passed on in prior decisions sub

silentio,” a later court is not “bound when a subsequent case

finally brings the jurisdictional issue before [it].” Hagans v.

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 535 n.5 (1974). And in one of the leading

cases the majority invokes, the Supreme Court stated what

should be obvious—that “general language” in its opinions

should not be applied to “quite different circumstances that the

Court was not then considering.” Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S.,

598 U.S. at 278 (citation omitted); see also Cohens v. Virginia,

19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 399 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.) (“If [general

expressions] go beyond the case, they may be respected, but

ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the

very point is presented for decision.”). Thus, decisions dealing

only with jurisdiction under the FSIA without considering Title

III cannot possibly control the issue posed in this case. See, e.g.,

Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 144

(2011).

As to that issue and contrary to the majority’s view, Title III

is an exclusive and independent remedy in no wise dependent

upon the FSIA. 

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 40 of 46
5

Title III, considered alone, deprives the Cuban defendants of

immunity from suit. Here are the words: “any person that . . .

traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban

government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any

United States national who owns the claim to such property for

money damages.” 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A). “[P]erson” is

defined to include “any agency or instrumentality of a foreign

state.” Id. § 6023(11).

The Supreme Court has held that nearly identical statutory

language waives the sovereign immunity of the U.S.

government. Dep’t of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Hous. Serv. v.

Kirtz, 601 U.S. 42, 50 (2024); see also Mowrer v. U.S. Dep’t of

Transp., 14 F.4th 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (same). In Kirtz, the

Court interpreted the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a

consumer protection statute. 601 U.S. at 45. Two provisions

were relevant to its analysis. Id. at 50–51. First, the FCRA

imposes civil liability on “[a]ny person” who willfully or

negligently fails to comply with the statute’s provisions. 15

U.S.C. §§ 1681n(a), 1681o(a). Second, the FCRA defines

“person” to “mean[],” among other things, “any . . . government

or governmental subdivision or agency.” Id. § 1681a(b). With

those two provisions, the Court held, “Congress has explicitly

permitted consumer claims for damages against the

government.” 601 U.S. at 51. Dismissing such actions on

immunity grounds would “effectively negate suits Congress has

clearly authorized.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration

omitted). 

Title III establishes that “any person,” including “any

agency or instrumentality of a foreign state,” that traffics in

expropriated property confiscated by the Cuban Government

“shall be liable” to U.S. nationals with claims to that property. 

22 U.S.C. §§ 6023(11), 6082(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). 

Compare that language with the FCRA’s: “Any person,”

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 41 of 46
6

including “any . . . government or governmental subdivision or

agency,” that violates the statute’s requirements “is liable to

th[e] [affected] consumer.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(b), 1681n(a),

1681o(a) (emphasis added). 

There is scarcely a difference between the two statutes in

terms of language or function. Both impose civil liability on any

“person.” And both define “person” to include governmental

instrumentalities. The Supreme Court has ruled that legislation 3

of the 1996 Congress—which enacted both the FCRA’s cause of

action and Title III—“explicitly” abrogated the sovereign

immunity of the United States. See Kirtz, 601 U.S. at 46–47, 51. 

And yet, according to the majority opinion, the same Congress

in the same Session using the same language did not bring about

the same result with respect to Cuban agencies. See Majority

Op. at 13–14. Put aside for the moment the obvious

disconnect—that Cuban agencies enjoy more protection from

The majority characterizes Title III as exposing all “foreign 3

states” to potential liability. Majority Op. at 14. This is doubly

mistaken. Title III does not allow suits against Cuba or any other

foreign state. It applies only to agencies and instrumentalities of

foreign states. See 22 U.S.C. §§ 6023(1), (11), 6082(a)(1)(A); 28

U.S.C. § 1603(a)–(b). In addition it is fanciful to suppose that nations

other than Cuba would “traffic[]” in property that the Cuban

government confiscated. See 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A). Such a

possibility is so remote as to be effectively nonexistent. It comes as no

surprise that the parties have identified no instance in which Cuba has

sold or transferred confiscated property to another foreign sovereign’s

instrumentality that then trafficked in that property. Exxon Mobil

Corp. v. Corporación Cimex S.A., 567 F. Supp. 3d 21, 27 n.3 (D.D.C.

Oct. 8, 2021) (“The court has been given no reason to believe that any

nation other than Cuba could be subject to a Title III claim. Neither

party has identified any instance in which Cuba has sold expropriated

property to another sovereign that now ‘traffics’ in that property.”). 

Nor has any such Title III action yet been filed.

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 42 of 46
7

lawsuits than agencies of the United States, which would be a

shock. Rather, consider the legal principle underlying the

majority’s analysis—unheard of until now—that Congress must

make an ultra-clear statement to abrogate foreign sovereign

immunity. That principle has no support. Like statutes are to be

treated alike. Title III thus functions as both a cause of action

and an abrogation of immunity. Cf. 22 U.S.C. § 6082(d)

(specifically discussing the enforceability of Title III judgments

against Cuban instrumentalities).

Title III is also specific in comparison to the FSIA. The

majority decides that if Title III is inconsistent with the FSIA,

the FSIA controls. Majority Op. at 8–14. That has it upsidedown. The time-honored canon of statutory construction is that

when two statutes are at odds, the specific prevails over the

general. See, e.g., Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550–51

(1974); Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat’l Pension Fund, 493

U.S. 365, 375 (1990); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner,

READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 183–88

(2012).

Title III is specific, the FSIA is general. Title III applies

only to Cuba’s confiscations of property. The FSIA applies to all

nations. Compare 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A), with 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1330, 1604(a), 1605(a). Under Title III only U.S. nationals

may bring an action. Under the FSIA anyone may sue, 4

including aliens. Compare 22 U.S.C. § 6082, with 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1330, 1605. Title III only authorizes actions in which the

A U.S. national “that brings an action under” Title III “may not 4

bring any other civil action” dealing with “the same subject matter”

under “Federal law.” 22 U.S.C. § 6082(f)(1)(A). FSIA suits are

necessarily “under” federal law. See, e.g., Federal Republic of

Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. 169, 185–86 (2021); Saudi Arabia v.

Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 354, 363 (1993).

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 43 of 46
8

amount in controversy exceeds $50,000, while FSIA claims have

no minimum. Compare 22 U.S.C. § 6082(b), with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1330(a).

5

There is yet another stark conflict between Title III and the

majority’s application of the expropriation exception in the

FSIA. The majority concludes that the FSIA’s expropriation

exception does not apply because, under international law, the

property Cuba confiscated was owned not by Exxon but by its

subsidiary. Majority Op. at 16–22. But in Title III actions, “the

court shall accept” claims certified by the Foreign Claims

Settlement Commission “as conclusive proof” of violated

property rights. 22 U.S.C. § 6083(a)(1).

This is an action under Title III. See J.A. 18–20, 47–48. 

The Commission, which considered international law,

determined that Cuba illegally took Exxon’s rights in property

worth more than $71 million. The statute instructs the courts to

treat Exxon’s ownership of an interest in that property as

“conclusive.” 22 U.S.C. § 6083(a)(1) (emphasis added). Yet in

defiance of that statutory mandate, the majority completely

disregards the Commission’s certification.

The majority also disregards the congressional findings and

statements of purpose in the LIBERTAD Act. Such legislative

pronouncements are important in determining a statute’s

meaning and scope. See, e.g., Bittner v. United States, 598 U.S.

85, 98 n.6 (2023); Scalia & Garner, supra, at 35, 217–20. In the

Act, Congress not only condemned Cuba’s confiscations, 22

U.S.C. § 6081(2)–(3); see also id. § 6021, but also declared that

the Act’s purpose was “to protect United States nationals against

Title III suits are brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

5

question), see 22 U.S.C. § 6082(c)(1), while suits under the FSIA are

brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (actions against foreign states).

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 44 of 46
9

confiscatory takings and the wrongful trafficking in property

confiscated by the Castro regime.” Id. § 6022(6); see also id.

§ 6022(3). “To deter” that trafficking, Congress concluded that

“United States nationals who were the victims of these

confiscations should be endowed with a judicial remedy.” Id. 

§ 6081(11). Yet “[t]he international judicial system, as currently

structured lacks fully effective remedies for the wrongful

confiscation of property and for unjust enrichment . . . at the

expense of the rightful owners of the property.” Id. § 6081(8). 

The FSIA was part of that system. Congress expressly

determined that Cuba’s wrongful takings required a remedy

beyond what was then available. See 22 U.S.C. § 6081(2). That

remedy is Title III, unencumbered by the FSIA.

One thing more. As the majority points out, some FSIA

provisions do apply to Title III actions. Majority Op. at 11–12

(citing 22 U.S.C. §§ 6023(1), (3), 6082(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §

1611(c)). But they have no effect on the outcome of this case. 

For example, Title III incorporates the FSIA’s procedures for

service of process. 22 U.S.C. § 6082(c)(2). There would be no

need for such a provision if Congress understood the FSIA to

apply to Title III in toto. For another example, the LIBERTAD

Act amended the FSIA (28 U.S.C. § 1611(c)) to provide that

Cuban “diplomatic” “property” will not be subject to attachment

and execution. The amendment dealt only with what property

may satisfy a judgment in a Title III action. Threshold immunity

for a defendant is a quite different matter. See, e.g., Verlinden

B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 493–94 (1983);

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. 202, 205 (2018). 

The amendment to the FSIA’s execution provision therefore has

nothing to do with Title III’s separate provisions depriving

Cuban instrumentalities of a sovereign immunity defense.

Nor is it compelling that Congress could have stated more

clearly that jurisdiction under Title III does not depend on the

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 45 of 46
10

FSIA. Contra Majority Op. at 11. Just because “Congress

knows how to say thus and so” does not mean it necessarily

“would have written thus and so if that is what it really

intended.” Doris Day Animal League v. Veneman, 315 F.3d 297,

299 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Congress “almost always” could write a

provision more clearly. Id. 

Because Title III abrogates the defendants’ sovereign

immunity, I would not decide whether the Foreign Sovereign

Immunities Act does so as well.

USCA Case #22-7020 Document #2067294 Filed: 07/30/2024 Page 46 of 46