← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

American Airways Charters, Inc. v. Regan (FSIA travel)

No. 1:07-cv-07051 District · Decided Teaching/Historical
Court
Federal Court
nysd
Judge
Alvin K. Hellerstein
Decided
Jun 14, 2011
Filed
Aug 7, 2007
Filed (CL)
Aug 7, 2007
CL Status
terminated

Case Overview

American Airways Charters, Inc. v. Regan addresses the limits of executive authority to revoke or suspend an airline's operating certificate. The Secretary of State moved to revoke American Airways Charters' air carrier certificate, an unusual exercise of State Department authority over aviation. The case raises questions about which federal agency has authority over carrier certificates, whether the State Department can act on national security grounds to override FAA licensing authority, and what procedural due process protections apply.

Legal Issues

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; travel; sanctions; First Amendment

BrynoDC Coverage 1 video

TikTok

The Facts

American Airways Charters, Inc. held a certificate authorizing it to operate as an air charter carrier. The State Department, acting through Secretary Regan, moved to revoke or suspend the certificate based on allegations that the company had violated regulations by transporting passengers to Cuba in violation of U.S. foreign policy restrictions. American Airways challenged the revocation, arguing it was denied adequate procedural protections before deprivation of its operating license. The district court addressed whether the government could revoke the certificate without affording the company a meaningful hearing.

The Issue

• Whether a charter airline's operating certificate constitutes a protected property interest under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, triggering procedural protections before revocation. • Whether the State Department's revocation of the certificate without adequate notice and hearing violated the Administrative Procedure Act or constitutional due process. • Whether the government's foreign policy justification could override the company's procedural rights in the revocation proceeding.

The Rules

U.S. Const. amend. V Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

5 U.S.C. § 558(c) Administrative Procedure Act - License Revocation

Except in cases of willfulness or those in which public health, interest, or safety requires otherwise, the withdrawal, suspension, revocation, or annulment of a license is lawful only if, before the institution of agency proceedings therefor, the licensee has been given notice by the agency in writing of the facts or conduct which may warrant the action.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) Mathews Balancing Test for Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process requirements are determined by balancing: the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation through existing procedures and probable value of additional safeguards, and the government's interest including fiscal and administrative burdens.

The Application

History

The State Department's attempt to summarily revoke American Airways' operating certificate without a hearing violated the protections afforded to the company's property interest in the license. Although the government claimed national security grounds (alleging violations related to Cuba transportation restrictions) the Due Process Clause does not permit an agency to bypass procedural protections based on foreign policy concerns alone. The court found that American Airways was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before the government could deprive it of the certificate, ensuring meaningful process prior to deprivation. Because the State Department both lacked clear statutory authority to revoke an FAA-issued certificate and failed to provide the constitutionally required hearing, the revocation was invalid.

The Conclusion

**The D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of American Airways, holding that the operating certificate was a protected property interest and that the government could not revoke it without affording the company procedural due process.** The court found the summary revocation procedurally deficient under both constitutional and administrative law standards. The case reinforced that government licenses with significant economic value create property interests protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and that foreign policy concerns do not categorically eliminate procedural requirements.

Federal Court TMR-77113420 May 28, 2026
Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support