Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. · ¶47

This approach rested on the premise that “property” could refer only to present property interests. But, no “Title III plaintiff” owns a present property interest “because that property now belongs to the Cuban Government.” Id., at 1286. After all, the Cuban Government expropriated those property interests in 1960. See 1 App. 483. In order to resolve this tension and “give effect” to its understanding of the statute, the Court of Appeals had to eliminate the “distorting effect of the confscation” by assuming that there had been no confscation and then asking whether the defendant's use of the property would have interfered with the owner's property interest absent the confscation. 119 F. 4th, at 1287–1288. In this case, the court posited a counterfactual scenario in which the Cuban Government “had never expropriated” Havana Docks' concession and then analyzed the defendants' conduct in…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.