The Law on Cuba

The Sureme Court and the Justice Department have acted with fine discrimination in the Cuba sugar case. By ruling 8-1 against United States sugar interests that lost property in Cuba, the Court conceded a petty victory to Fidel Castro in order to confirm an important principle of international law.

The expropriated American investors had persuaded lower courts to uphold their claim to $175,000 in Cuban sugar receipts deposited in New York banks. They wanted the Supreme Court to ratify this decision, arguing that foreign seizure decrees are invalid if they violate international law.

The Justice Department interpreted the issues at stake with greater far-sightedness. An old legal principle called the act of state doctrine holds that courts cannot rule on the validity of acts taken by foreign governments in their own territories. To preserve this doctrine, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts, thus respecting Cuban law. The Court did so, with an eloquent opinion written by Justice Harlan.

This decision is consistent with past rulings by our courts, and it protects a doctrine which the United States has used in expropriation cases of its own. Moreover, to allow the sugar investors' suit would look to other nations like a partisan defense of American interests, as the Justice Department noted.

Nevertheless, it is galling to have to rule in favor of a regime as malignant as Castro's, and public sentiment against the Cuban dictator is difficult to ignore. The decision to put sound just law above national opinion required courage as well as wisdom.