Private Security Firm Sues Government For 'Just Compensation' | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-05.19.25

Airborne-NextGen-05.20.25

AirborneUnlimited-05.21.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-05.22.25

AirborneUnlimited-05.23.25

Sat, Nov 15, 2003

Private Security Firm Sues Government For 'Just Compensation'

Huntleigh USA Says It Wants To Be Paid For Losing Airport Screener Contracts

Huntleigh USA Corporation, whose private airport security business was destroyed when the TSA took over passenger and baggage screening duties at US airports, Friday asked a federal court to order the government to compensate it for the lost business.

Huntleigh President Joseph Tuero explained that the Company filed this lawsuit because "the United States Constitution requires the government to pay you for the value of property it takes for public use. In addition, in the Aviation Transportation and Security Act, Congress required that adequate compensation be paid to airport security firms whose contracts were being taken over by the federal government. We are asking the court to enforce the law." Huntleigh's claim, which was filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., states that Huntleigh alone should not be made to bear the financial burden of the government's decision to federalize a function that had been performed by private companies for decades.

"Just Compensation" Required by Constitution

In its filing, Huntleigh says the government effectively confiscated Huntleigh's security business - a "taking" in legal parlance. While the government may take private property for public use, the "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment requires payment of "just compensation" to the owner of that property.

"The taking of Huntleigh's security business without any payment is not only unconstitutional, it's unfair,"  Tuero said. "Huntleigh built a valuable business over the years and provided a much-needed public service. Then the federal government, through the TSA, took over security screening at airports and essentially put Huntleigh out of business. One day we had a growing, thriving security company - the next day we were being forced to shut down that business. That's not how our country is supposed to work, and that can't be what our Founders or what Congress intended."

The company's filing notes that in a taking case, "the owner must be put in the same position monetarily as it would have occupied if its property had not been taken." Thus far, the government has refused to provide Huntleigh any compensation for the going concern value and good will value of its lost business.

Congress Specifically Backed Compensation, but the TSA Declined

The filing also notes that Congress contemplated in the language of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (passed in November 2001) that adequate compensation would be paid to security firms whose contracts were being taken over by the federal government.

Before the federal government took Huntleigh's business, Huntleigh provided airport security services to eight major airlines and dozens of smaller carriers at nearly three dozen airports across the United States. Huntleigh screened a significant number of all passengers traveling through this country's airports. Given Huntleigh's dedication to passenger safety, excellent reputation in the industry and long-standing relationships with the air carriers, the Company had every reason to anticipate continued business success. As a result, in recent years Huntleigh had invested heavily in technology enhancements and employee training.

"Although the government claims that it took over airport screening for the public good, in all fairness, Huntleigh should not be asked to bear the financial burden alone,"  Tuero said. "The government took Huntleigh's business, and the Constitution says the government has to pay for it."

www.bork.com/huntleigh

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.29.25): Terminal Radar Service Area

Terminal Radar Service Area Airspace surrounding designated airports wherein ATC provides radar vectoring, sequencing, and separation on a full-time basis for all IFR and participa>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.30.25): Very High Frequency (VHF)

Very High Frequency (VHF) The frequency band between 30 and 300 MHz. Portions of this band, 108 to 118 MHz, are used for certain NAVAIDs; 118 to 136 MHz are used for civil air/grou>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (05.30.25)

“From approximately November 2021 through January 2022, Britton-Harr, acting on behalf of AeroVanti, entered into lease-purchase agreements for five Piaggio-manufactured airc>[...]

Airborne 05.23.25: Global 8000, Qatar B747 Accepted, Aviation Merit Badge

Also: Virtual FLRAA Prototype, IFR-Capable Autonomous A/C, NS-32 Crew, Golden Dome Missile Defense Bombardier announced that the first production Global 8000 successfully completed>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.30.25)

Aero Linx: The 1-26 Association (Schweizer) The Association’s goal is to foster the helpfulness, the camaraderie, and the opportunity for head-to-head competition that is fou>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC