U.S. Supreme Court,
International Law
Jun. 24, 2026
The strange afterlife of Cuban property seizures
The Supreme Court's rulings in major Cuban confiscation and trafficking cases clarify the scope of the Libertad Act and modern takings doctrine, reinforcing liability for use of expropriated property while underscoring the procedural and remedial complexities of pursuing long-delayed compensation claims.
Michael M. Berger
Senior Counsel
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
2049 Century Park East
Los Angeles , CA 90067
Phone: (310) 312-4185
Fax: (310) 996-6968
Email: mmberger@manatt.com
USC Law School
Michael M. Berger is senior counsel at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, where his practice focuses on appeals with a particular interest in constitutional land use. He has argued four takings cases in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sixty-odd years ago, Fidel Castro toppled the existing Cuban
government. As part of the process, he confiscated large amounts of property
owned by American citizens and companies. In his own words, Castro declared
that his new communist government would seize all the "Yankee property" in Cuba
"down to the nails in their shoes."
Or access this article for $45
Already a subscriber?
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up