“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const, amend. V, cl. 4. Although the Supreme Court has stated that “[cjontract rights are a form of property and as such may be taken for a public purpose provided that just compensation is paid,” United States Trust Co. of N.Y. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 97 S.Ct. 1505, 52 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977), it has also emphasized that government interference with contractual rights does not necessarily constitute a taking of property: Contracts, however express, cannot fetter the constitutional authority of Congress. Contracts may create rights of property, but when contracts deal with a subject matter which lies within the control of Congress, they have a congenital infirmity. Parties 9 (Fed.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The first distinction is that both cases
holding that the county government not the federal government was liable for the taking of an air easement over plaintiffs property even though the airport was funded in part by a federal grant based on compliance with federal regulations holding that a health plan insurer contracting with a government agency under a federal benefits program is considered a person acting under a federal officer holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where city of burlington acted under federal authority holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where california officials acting under the authority of a federal order occupied land recognizing that stateimposed restrictions upon property may be attributed to the federal government for purposes of a takings analysis where the state officials acted as agents of the federal government or pursuant to federal authority