| United States v. Winstar Corp. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued April 24, 1996 Decided July 1, 1996 |
||||||
| Full case name | United States v. Winstar Corp., et al. | |||||
| Citations | 518 U.S. 839 (more) 116 S.Ct. 2432; 135 L.Ed.2d 964 |
|||||
| Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Waivers of sovereign power generally must be surrendered in unmistakable terms. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Plurality | Souter, joined by Stevens, Breyer, O'Connor | |||||
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Kennedy, Thomas | |||||
| Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Ginsburg | |||||
United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996),[1] was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the United States Government had breached its contractual obligations. Winstar rejected the Government's “unmistakability defense”—that surrenders of sovereign authority, such as the promise to refrain from regulatory changes, must appear in unmistakable terms in a contract in order to be enforceable.
Winstar arose as a consequence of the savings and loan crisis. Federal regulators extended generous tax incentives to financial institutions which took over failing thrifts-Congress later substantially changed these advantages and one of the successor banks successfully sued. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a breach of contract and awarded damages—the Supreme Court upheld the lower court decision. Winstar cases are still in litigation with multi-million dollar pay outs to the plaintiffs.