Oral Argument: Exxon Mobil v. Corpora Cion Cimex (cuba) | Standoff Over Castro's 1960 Oil Refinery Heist
Oral Argument: Exxon Mobil v. Corpora Cion Cimex (cuba) | Standoff Over Castro's 1960 Oil Refinery Heist  
Podcast: SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions
Published On: Mon Feb 23 2026
Description: Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corpora Cion Cimex, S.A. (Cuba) | Oral Argument: 2/23/26 | Case No. 24-699 | Docket Link: HereOverview: Constitutional challenge to D.C. Circuit decision dismissing lawsuit against Cuban state-owned companies operating stolen American oil facilities raises fundamental questions about congressional authority to override sovereign immunity for targeted foreign policy objectives.Question Presented: Whether Exxon Mobil can sue Cuban companies for seizing Exxon Mobil’s oil refineries and related property.Posture: D.C. District Court denied Cuban companies' motion to dismiss; D.C. Circuit reversed for lack of jurisdictionMain Arguments:• Exxon (Petitioner): (1) Title III's "any person" language including foreign instrumentalities effects clear immunity abrogation; (2) Congressional purpose requires Cuban government accountability without FSIA compliance; (3) Supreme Court precedent eliminates magic-words requirement for immunity waiver• Cimex (Respondent): (1) Kirtz distinction applies because FSIA creates restrictive immunity regime allowing suit progression; (2) Statutory harmonization principles permit Title III and FSIA coexistence without implied repeal; (3) Petitioner's interpretation creates subject-matter jurisdiction gapsImplications: Exxon victory enables $9 billion in Cuban expropriation claims while establishing congressional authority for targeted immunity abrogation. A Cimex victory preserves traditional sovereign immunity protections, requiring Americans to satisfy onerous FSIA exceptions for Cuban trafficking claims.The Fine Print:• Helms-Burton Act § 6082(a)(1): "Any person that traffics in property which was confiscated...shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property"• 22 U.S.C. § 6023(11): "'Person' means any person or entity, including any agency or instrumentality of a foreign state"Primary Cases:• Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz (2024): Fair Credit Reporting Act abrogated federal sovereign immunity through "any person" language creating government liability; clear congressional intent overcomes immunity presumptions• Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (2023): Statutory immunity abrogation requires "unmistakably clear" congressional language; recognizing immunity would negate authorized cause of action entirelyOral Advocates:For Petitioner (Exxon Mobil): Morgan Ratner of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP argues for Petitioner Exxon Mobil.United States as Amicus Curiae: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice.For Respondents (Corporación Cimex): Jules Lobel, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.Timestamps:[00:00:00] Argument Preview[00:00:55] Oral Argument Begins[00:01:10] Exxon Mobil Opening Statement[00:03:23] Exxon Mobil Free for All Questions[00:18:48] Exxon Mobil Round Robin Questions[00:32:32] United States Opening Statement[00:33:51] United States Free for All Questions[00:42:54] United States Round Robin Questions[00:59:32] Corporacion Cimex Opening Statement[01:01:51] Corporacion Cimex Free for All Questions[01:28:01] Corporacion Cimex Round Robin Questions[01:30:24] Exxon Mobil Rebuttal