Master The Supreme Court held the United States liable for breaching thrift-assistance contracts when later legislation (FIRREA) eliminated promised regulatory treatment of supervisory goodwill. with this comprehensive case brief.
United States v. Winstar Corp. is a foundational government contracts case arising from the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s. Federal regulators, desperate to stabilize failing thrifts, induced healthy institutions to acquire them by promising specific regulatory accounting treatment—most notably, allowing "supervisory goodwill" to count toward regulatory capital over extended amortization periods. When Congress later enacted FIRREA in 1989, that promised treatment was eliminated, pushing the acquiring thrifts out of compliance and causing large losses. The acquirers sued the United States, alleging breach.
The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies two key doctrines that often shield the government from contract liability—the unmistakability doctrine and the sovereign acts doctrine. The Court held that the government may not escape liability for damages when it contracted to allocate the risk of future regulatory change to itself. Winstar thus underscores that the United States, when acting as a market participant, is generally subject to ordinary contract principles and cannot use its sovereign power to undercut its contractual commitments without paying for the consequences.
United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996) (U.S. Supreme Court)
In the early to mid-1980s, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) sought to resolve a nationwide thrift crisis by encouraging solvent institutions to acquire failing savings and loans. To make these deals viable, regulators entered assistance agreements that included formal resolutions and forbearance letters promising that the acquiring institutions could count "supervisory goodwill"—an intangible asset created in the acquisition accounting—as part of their regulatory capital and amortize it over lengthy periods (often 20–40 years). Winstar Corporation, Statesman Savings, and Glendale Federal were among the acquirers who relied on these promises. In 1989, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), which abolished the FHLBB and FSLIC, created new regulators (the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Resolution Trust Corporation), and imposed new capital standards that largely disallowed counting supervisory goodwill toward required capital. The new regulators enforced these standards, causing acquiring thrifts to fall out of regulatory compliance, suffer severe financial harm, and in some cases face seizure or forced restructuring. The institutions sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for breach of contract. The Federal Circuit affirmed liability. The government petitioned for certiorari, arguing that the unmistakability doctrine and the sovereign acts doctrine barred liability. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of breach and rejected the government’s defenses.
Is the United States liable for breach of its thrift-assistance contracts when subsequent legislation (FIRREA) prevents performance of promised regulatory accounting treatment for supervisory goodwill, or do the unmistakability and sovereign acts doctrines shield the government from liability?
Ordinary principles of contract law apply to the United States when it acts in its proprietary capacity. The unmistakability doctrine, which requires clear and unmistakable terms to find a surrender of sovereign authority, does not bar claims seeking damages for breach based on the government’s assumption of risk; it primarily prevents construing a public contract as an exemption from future regulation absent unmistakable terms. The sovereign acts doctrine shields the United States from liability when a public and general act of the sovereign renders performance impossible and the contract did not allocate the risk of such governmental action to the United States. However, when the government expressly or impliedly assumes the risk of regulatory change—such as by promising specific regulatory treatment—subsequent public and general legislation does not preclude contract liability; the government may legislate, but it must pay damages for breaching its contractual commitments.
Yes. The United States is liable for breach of the thrift-assistance contracts. The unmistakability doctrine does not bar recovery because the plaintiffs sought damages for breach rather than an exemption from regulation, and the agreements allocated to the government the risk of regulatory change. The sovereign acts doctrine also does not preclude liability because, even if FIRREA was a public and general act, the government assumed the risk that such action would interfere with promised regulatory treatment and is therefore responsible for damages.
The Court first found that binding contracts existed in which federal regulators, acting within their authority, promised specific regulatory accounting treatment of supervisory goodwill, including amortization schedules and capital credits that would enable acquirers to meet regulatory capital requirements. These promises were essential inducements for acquiring failing thrifts and formed part of the consideration for assuming troubled assets and liabilities. Addressing the unmistakability doctrine, the Court explained that the doctrine prevents construing government contracts to exempt private parties from generally applicable regulation absent unmistakable language relinquishing sovereign authority. But the plaintiffs did not seek to block FIRREA's application; they sought damages for breach. The Court emphasized that a contractual promise to assume the risk of regulatory change is not a surrender of sovereign power; rather, it is a commitment to pay if sovereign action frustrates performance. Therefore, no heightened “unmistakable” language was required to recognize the government's assumed risk. Turning to the sovereign acts doctrine, the Court accepted that FIRREA was a public and general law, not targeted at these specific contracts. Nevertheless, the doctrine does not automatically immunize the government from liability whenever a sovereign act impedes performance. The key question is risk allocation: Did the government, as contractor, assume the risk that a change in law would undermine the promised regulatory treatment? The Court concluded that the assistance agreements and forbearance provisions allocated that risk to the government by committing to a defined treatment of supervisory goodwill over time. Because the government had undertaken that risk, its subsequent inability to perform due to FIRREA constituted a breach triggering damages. Finally, the Court reaffirmed that the government’s dual roles—as sovereign and as market actor—are distinct. While Congress remained free to change the regulatory regime, the United States could not avoid the contractual consequences of having induced reliance on a regulatory status quo. The Court thus affirmed liability and remanded for damages consistent with expectancy principles.
Winstar is the leading case on government liability when later sovereign acts frustrate contractual commitments. It clarifies that: - The government cannot invoke the unmistakability doctrine to avoid damages where a contract allocates regulatory risk to the government; that doctrine primarily bars reading public contracts as regulatory exemptions. - The sovereign acts doctrine does not provide blanket immunity; if the government assumed the risk of regulatory change, it remains liable for breach even when the change results from public and general legislation. - Ordinary contract principles—including expectancy damages—apply to the United States acting as contractor. Agencies must draft with care (e.g., include change-in-law clauses or explicit risk allocations) and recognize that inducements based on regulatory treatment can generate substantial liability if later law changes upset that bargain. For law students, Winstar is a cornerstone for understanding sovereign capacity versus contractual capacity, risk allocation in public contracts, and the limits of government defenses in the face of legislative change. It also spawned a major line of follow-on damages cases (“Winstar-related cases”) that shaped remedies against the United States.
Regulators promised that acquiring thrifts could count supervisory goodwill and other capital credits toward regulatory capital and amortize those amounts over extended periods (often 20–40 years). These commitments, reflected in assistance agreements, resolutions, and forbearance letters, were designed to ensure the acquirers would meet capital requirements after taking on failing institutions.
The government argued that any contract limiting its future regulatory power must do so unmistakably. The Court rejected that framing because plaintiffs sought damages, not immunity from regulation. A risk-allocation promise does not surrender sovereign power; it accepts financial responsibility if sovereign action frustrates performance. Thus, no "unmistakable" waiver was required to find liability.
The sovereign acts doctrine protects the government from liability for contractual nonperformance caused by public and general sovereign acts, absent a risk allocation to the contrary. Although FIRREA was public and general, the contracts allocated the risk of regulatory change to the government by promising specific regulatory treatment. Therefore, the doctrine did not immunize the United States from damages.
No. Winstar preserves Congress’s authority to legislate but holds that the United States must pay contract damages if its sovereign acts frustrate contractual commitments for which it assumed the risk. The decision separates sovereign authority (unchanged) from contractual liability (enforced through damages).
Agencies should explicitly address change-in-law risk through clauses that (1) reserve sovereign authority, (2) disclaim liability for certain regulatory changes, or (3) provide negotiated compensation mechanisms. Contractors should seek clear commitments and risk allocations where regulatory treatment is essential to the bargain. Absent careful drafting, courts will apply ordinary contract principles to enforce inducement promises.
United States v. Winstar Corp. stands for the proposition that the government, when it bargains as a market participant, must honor its commitments or pay for breaching them. The Court declined to convert the unmistakability and sovereign acts doctrines into sweeping shields for the United States, focusing instead on the parties’ allocation of regulatory risk and the ordinary expectations of contracting.
By reaffirming that risk-allocation promises are enforceable and that damages remain available even when subsequent legislation frustrates performance, Winstar preserves both the government’s sovereign authority to regulate and the rule-of-law values that underpin public contracting. The decision remains essential reading for understanding how contracts interact with changing regulatory landscapes and the limits of government defenses in complex, high-stakes agreements.