Huntleigh USA Corporation v. United States

No. 03-2670C (2005)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Huntleigh USA Corporation v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 03-2670C (2005)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Huntleigh USA Corporation (Huntleigh) (plaintiff) was an airport security contractor that provided passenger and baggage screening services at 35 airports nationwide. Huntleigh provided its services under contracts with multiple major and regional airlines, which renewed in three-year terms. Huntleigh invested significantly in security-checkpoint infrastructure and workforce training to fulfill its contractual duties and provided its security services in full compliance with all federal laws. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government (defendant) enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. The act created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and federalized the entire airport security industry, which had previously been operated by private contractors, like Huntleigh. The act included a nine-month transition period, during which private contractors, operating under interim government contracts, would continue to fulfill airport security functions while TSA worked to replace private screeners with federal screeners. At the end of the transition period, TSA would be the sole provider of airport security services and all existing private aviation security contracts, including Huntleigh’s, would be eliminated. Huntleigh sued the government in the Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the act violated the Takings Clause because it appropriated Huntleigh’s contracts, goodwill, and going-concern value for public use without compensation. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Huntleigh was not entitled to compensation under the Takings Clause (1) because the act was a valid exercise of the government’s police power; and (2) because Huntleigh’s property rights only existed subject to federal regulations, those property rights could also be eliminated by federal regulation.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Margolis, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership