Passed
247 Yea164 Nay20 Not voting1/2 required
HR-7084-119
Received in the Senate.
Sponsored by August Pfluger (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend federal maritime law to bar vessels from entering U.S. ports if they have used a port, harbor, or marine terminal in a Western Hemisphere country that has a U.S. free trade agreement in place, where that facility was expropriated or nationalized from a U.S. person and sits on land exclusively accessible through U.S.-owned property. The President would be authorized to designate specific foreign facilities that meet these criteria, and would be required to remove that designation once the expropriation dispute is resolved — through property restoration, full compensation, or another mutually acceptable settlement. An emergency exception would allow otherwise-barred vessels to enter U.S. ports if a person or vessel aboard is in distress, or if the U.S. property owner has authorized the vessel's transit.
Who benefits
U.S. persons (individuals or companies) who own or have owned port, harbor, or marine terminal facilities in Western Hemisphere free-trade-agreement countries and have had those properties expropriated or nationalized. U.S. maritime and trade lawyers who would handle designation proceedings and arbitration. Competing port operators in the region who were not expropriated and would gain a commercial advantage. U.S. shipbuilders and port operators who may benefit from trade rerouting. Domestic workers at U.S. ports that handle rerouted cargo.
Who is hurt
Shipping companies and vessel operators that currently use the designated foreign facilities and would need to reroute or face denial of U.S. port entry. Importers and exporters — including U.S. businesses and consumers — who rely on supply chains running through those facilities and may face higher shipping costs or delays. The foreign country whose facilities are designated, which could face economic pressure. Crew members aboard affected vessels who may face operational disruptions. Smaller U.S. importers with less flexibility to absorb rerouting costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that when a foreign government seizes property owned by U.S. persons, the U.S. has a legitimate interest in using market access as leverage to secure compensation or restitution, consistent with international law's requirement of "adequate and effective" compensation for expropriation. They contend that denying U.S. port access to vessels benefiting from expropriated American-owned infrastructure creates a direct economic consequence for the expropriating government and its trading partners, incentivizing resolution. They further argue the bill is narrowly tailored — applying only to Western Hemisphere free-trade-agreement partners, preserving emergency exceptions, and requiring the President to lift designations once disputes are resolved.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that tying broad port-entry restrictions to individual property disputes could disrupt established shipping routes and raise costs for U.S. importers and consumers who had no role in the underlying expropriation. They contend that existing mechanisms — including investor-state dispute settlement under the relevant free trade agreements and diplomatic channels — already provide remedies for expropriation, making port denial an unnecessarily blunt instrument. They further argue that concentrating designation authority in the President with limited procedural constraints could expose the provision to nondelegation challenges, particularly under the post-Loper Bright environment where courts independently scrutinize the scope of authority Congress delegates to the executive branch.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to regulate foreign commerce and set conditions on entry into U.S. ports under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3). The bill delegates designation authority to the President, which could face scrutiny under the Necessary and Proper Clause and nondelegation principles (Art. I, §1); after Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts independently assess whether statutory delegations provide sufficient guidance, and the bill's relatively open-ended presidential designation standard may draw review.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (President) gains new designation authority to bar vessels from U.S. ports; checks include the bill's mandatory removal conditions, the emergency exception, the limitation to free-trade-agreement partners, and judicial review of any vessel denial under existing maritime and administrative law.
Historical precedent
The Helms-Burton Act (1996) similarly used U.S. market access restrictions — including visa denials and liability provisions — to pressure Cuba over expropriated American-owned property, establishing a precedent for linking property disputes to U.S. entry privileges.
Passed