This paper explores how Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. could redefine the boundaries of sovereign immunity and turn U.S. courts into arenas for foreign policy battles. Born from Cuba’s 1960 nationalization of American oil refineries and revived by President Trump’s 2019 activation of the Helms–Burton Act, the case asks whether that Act overrides the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)—or whether Exxon must still satisfy one of FSIA’s narrow exceptions. Beneath the legal question lies a geopolitical one: should private corporations act as proxy enforcers of U.S. sanctions against foreign governments? Drawing on precedents like Republic of Austria v. Altmann (2004) and Rubin v. Iran (2018), this paper argues that Congress never clearly authorized such an abrogation of immunity. If the Court sides with Exxon, it risks weaponizing U.S. courts as instruments of diplomacy, blurring the line between justice and geopolitics in an increasingly volatile world.

On June 12, 2023, the Texas legislature passed H.B. 1181, a law that would require any website whose content contains more than one-third sexual material harmful to minors to incorporate age verification methods. Before taking effect, plaintiffs sued, claiming that H.B. 1181 violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the age-verification requirement failed strict scrutiny, and launched an injunction. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Texas, ruling that the age verification requirement only called for a rational basis review, and they vacated the district court’s injunction. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on July 2, 2024. The question before the court is whether H.B. 1181’s age verification requirement is subject to a rational basis review or strict scrutiny.