Huntleigh USA Corporation v. United States
525 F.3d 1370, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10437, 2008 WL 2051966 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Governmental action that merely frustrates a business's expectations or indirectly causes economic loss by regulating a third party does not constitute a compensable Fifth Amendment taking. A statutory provision requiring compensation if the government 'assumes the rights and responsibilities of a contract' mandates actual substitution into the contract, not merely taking over the functions previously performed under it.
Facts:
- Huntleigh USA Corporation was a company providing passenger and baggage screening services at airports throughout the United States.
- Between 1989 and early 2002, airlines contracted with Huntleigh to meet their responsibilities for passenger and baggage screening under the Air Transportation Security Act of 1974.
- As of November 19, 2001, Huntleigh had contracts with approximately 75 airlines, covering passenger and baggage screening at some 35 airports across the United States.
- All of Huntleigh’s contracts were terminable upon one party providing a certain number of days' notice to the other party, though Huntleigh had an excellent industry reputation and no major airline had terminated a contract since 1991.
- Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA).
- ATSA transferred all security and screening functions at U.S. airports to the federal government, specifically the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security.
- ATSA Section 101(g)(2) provided that the Under Secretary could perform these functions by assuming existing private screening contracts, requiring adequate compensation if those contracts were assumed.
- ATSA effectively eliminated the market for private airport screening services, leading Huntleigh and the airlines to treat their contracts as terminated upon the government’s full assumption of screening functions, resulting in a considerable loss of business to Huntleigh.
Procedural Posture:
- Huntleigh USA Corporation filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.
- Huntleigh alleged that ATSA's transfer of responsibility for security screening resulted in a Fifth Amendment taking of its property without just compensation and that it was entitled to compensation under section 101(g)(2) of ATSA.
- The Court of Federal Claims conducted a four-day trial on Huntleigh’s claims.
- The Court of Federal Claims rendered a decision rejecting both of Huntleigh’s claims and ordered the dismissal of Huntleigh’s complaint, finding no taking and no government assumption of contracts.
- Huntleigh appealed the decision of the Court of Federal Claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA)'s transfer of airport screening responsibilities from airlines to the federal government constitute a Fifth Amendment taking of Huntleigh's security screening contracts, going concern value, or goodwill? 2. Is Huntleigh entitled to compensation under ATSA Section 101(g)(2) when the government undertook airport security screening functions previously performed by private contractors, even though it did not literally assume Huntleigh's existing contracts?
Opinions:
Majority - Schall, Circuit Judge
No, the enactment of ATSA did not effect a Fifth Amendment taking of Huntleigh's property, and no, Huntleigh was not entitled to compensation under section 101(g)(2) of ATSA. The court reasoned that Huntleigh's takings claim failed because the government did not directly appropriate Huntleigh's contracts or business. Instead, ATSA regulated a third party (airlines) by eliminating their security screening obligations and transferring those responsibilities to the federal government. This governmental action, while resulting in indirect economic consequences for Huntleigh by eliminating the market for its services, merely “frustrated” Huntleigh’s business expectations rather than constituting a direct taking of its property. The court cited Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States and Air Pegasus of D.C., Inc. v. United States, which held that governmental actions directed at third parties that cause indirect losses to a claimant do not form the basis for a compensable takings claim. Regarding Huntleigh’s claim for compensation under ATSA Section 101(g)(2), the court determined that the plain language of the statute required compensation only if the government "assume[d] the rights and responsibilities of an air carrier or foreign air carrier contract." The court interpreted this to mean actually stepping into the shoes of a party to an existing contract. Since Huntleigh conceded that the government did not literally assume any of its contracts, but rather merely took over the screening functions, the statutory condition for compensation was not met. The court further noted that interpreting "assume the rights and responsibilities" to mean simply taking over the functions would render Section 101(g)(2) redundant, given that Section 101(g)(1) already mandated the government assume all screening functions. Such a redundant reading of a statute is disfavored.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limits of Fifth Amendment takings claims, particularly in situations where governmental action indirectly impacts a business by regulating third parties. It reinforces the principle that 'frustration of business expectations' or economic losses due to market changes caused by regulation are generally not compensable takings, distinguishing them from direct appropriations or severe regulatory burdens on the claimant’s own property. The decision also provides a strict interpretation of statutory language for compensation, emphasizing that explicit conditions, such as 'assuming the rights and responsibilities of a contract,' require literal compliance rather than mere functional equivalence, thereby limiting the scope of statutory compensation for economic disruption.
