Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S. A. (Cuba)

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S. A. (Cuba)

In the 2026 case of Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Helms-Burton Act allows American nationals to sue Cuban government-owned entities for trafficking in confiscated property without needing to satisfy the specific exceptions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh argued that the law’s unique structure and presidential suspension authority clearly indicate a congressional intent to waive sovereign immunity for these agencies. The Court concluded that requiring plaintiffs to meet FSIA standards would effectively nullify the private right of action Congress established to provide remedies for wrongful seizures. In contrast, Justice Kagan’s dissent contended that the Helms-Burton Act lacks the "unmistakably clear" language required to abrogate immunity, suggesting instead that the two statutes should coexist. This landmark decision clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries for litigation involving foreign state instrumentalities and property claims tied to the Cuban embargo. Consequently, the case was reversed and remanded to allow the litigation against the Cuban companies to proceed.

Pung v. Isabella County: Tax Sales and Just Compensation

In the 2026 case of Pung v. Isabella County, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether the government must compensate a homeowner for a property's fair market value after a tax foreclosure sale. The petitioner, Michael Pung, argued that receiving only the surplus proceeds from an auction—rather than the home's much higher assessed value—violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. Justice Alito, writing for a nearly unanimous Court, held that the auction price serves as the constitutional baseline for "just compensation," provided the sale is conducted fairly according to historical traditions. The Court reasoned that requiring fair market value would impose unprecedented burdens on tax collection and could potentially bankrupt local jurisdictions. While the Court rejected the broad constitutional demand for market-value payouts, it remanded the case to allow lower courts to investigate whether the specific foreclosure procedures used by the county were fundamentally unfair. Justice Thomas’s concurrence highlighted the troubling facts of the case, noting that the Pungs lost a $194,400 home over a disputed $2,242 tax debt that may not have even been legally owed.

Blanche v. Lau: Burdens of Proof for Reentering Residents

This Supreme Court case, Blanche v. Lau, addresses whether border officers must possess clear and convincing evidence of a crime before treating a lawful permanent resident as an applicant for admission. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, residents returning from abroad are typically considered already admitted, but an exception exists for those who have committed certain offenses. The Court ruled that the government is not required to prove the commission of a crime at the moment of reentry. Instead, the legal burden may be satisfied during subsequent removal proceedings using evidence like a guilty plea. Consequently, the majority held that a pending criminal charge is sufficient for officials to pause a resident's formal admission status at the border. The dissenting justices argued that this sequence undermines the legal security of green card holders by allowing the government to justify status demotions with post-entry evidence.

McCarthy v. Hernandez: Limiting AEDPA Habeas Relief over Seibert Instructions

This Supreme Court opinion reverses a lower court's decision to grant habeas corpus relief to Pedro Hernandez, who was convicted for the 1979 murder of Etan Patz. The Second Circuit had previously ruled that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on legal attenuation regarding the defendant's multiple confessions. However, the Supreme Court determined that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) restricts federal courts from overturning state convictions unless a "clearly established" federal law was violated. The justices clarified that the precedent in Missouri v. Seibert governs judicial decisions on evidence admissibility rather than jury instructions. Since the New York state courts followed their own procedural laws regarding what juries must consider, the federal appellate court exceeded its authority by imposing a new constitutional requirement. Ultimately, the Court maintains that there is no federal mandate requiring a jury to evaluate the voluntariness or legality of confessions once a judge has admitted them into evidence.

Rey v. LCMC Health Care Partners

This episode details a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding a lawsuit over helicopter noise and vibrations at a New Orleans hospital. A group of local residents sought a mandatory injunction to force the hospital to relocate its helipad, but the district court found that federal regulations preempted such a request. The plaintiffs attempted to appeal this decision immediately, claiming the ruling was an interlocutory order that effectively refused an injunction. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to prove the decision would cause irreparable harm before a final judgment. The court emphasized that immediate appeals are generally reserved for preliminary injunctions rather than the permanent relief sought in this nuisance case.