Abstract
<p>This article examines the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S. A. (Cuba) as a significant development in the relationship between sovereign immunity, private litigation, and foreign policy. It argues that the case should not be read merely as a technical dispute between the Helms-Burton Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), but as an application of the clear-statement rule for sovereign-immunity abrogation in a foreign-relations setting. Relying on Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, 601 U.S. 42 (2024), the majority held that Congress need not use “magic words” to abrogate immunity; it is sufficient that abrogation be clearly discernible from the statutory scheme as a whole. The article argues that the Helms-Burton Act’s architecture—private cause of action, statutory inclusion of foreign agencies and instrumentalities, remedial design, federal-question jurisdiction, selective borrowing from the FSIA, and presidential suspension authority—reveals a model of privatized geopolitical enforcement. The decision does not represent a general collapse of sovereign immunity, but rather the recognition of a controlled mechanism through which Cold War-era expropriation claims may be reactivated through transnational civil litigation.</p>