WPC?N 2rBcRc Z#|[ "m^56=ii,GG\o3=33iiiiiiiiii33ooo\QwzzGoGo\,pwfziGp~DAzA~pzw_\N~pppbGoGo=3============pDpppppfiiiiQDQDQDQD~pppp~~~~ppzppppzpppffffziiiipppppp~~QDQDQDQDwzAAAAA~~~~pp___z\z\z\z\NNN~~~~~~pzbzbzbzA~_z\Nppzp~No3\6\\\iiiCCi?i?,XX\==\\~~,X?ooee3o<;o;rfolWSGrfffZAeAe8.888888888888f>fffff]````J>J>J>J>rffffrrrrxffoffxffofff]]]]o````ffffffrrJ>J>J>J>lox;x;x;x;x;rrrrffWWWoSoSoSoSxGxGxGrrrrrrxfoZoZoZox;rWoSxGxfxfofrNe.}S1SSS```==`9}}`9(PPS88SSrr(P9ee\\w.e77\\\wwweeeCe.wR)EreewwwwIeenR\\\wwwxio\eEfRfIfRxe|W87y\r\rxWlRx\\]\ceIfIs`Wx\rriIe77\``rigewiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee777777777777\\\\\\\````````````rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrxfx8xs8s\New Century SchoolbookNew Century Schoolbook BoldTimes RomanTimes Roman BoldNew Century Schoolbook Italic2c cxc c>"m^*,:SS}z22K[*2**SSSSSSSSSS**[[[Collluldu}=Sudzudul_dzljj\2[2[KSSCVK2Q\/,Y/\KVSCE:\QuQQH2[2[2*222222222222V/lSlSlSlSlSwlClKlKlKlK=/=/=/=/z\uKuKuKuKz\z\z\z\jQlSuVuKuKjQuKdVlSlSlSlClClClCuVlKlKlKlKuQuQuQuQuQuQ}\}\=/=/=/=/SuYd/d/d/d/d/z\z\z\z\uKuK}lClClC_E_E_E_Ed:d:d:z\z\z\z\z\z\ujQ\H\H\HuVd/z\lC_Ed:jQjQuVuKz\N[*[K,C@@SSS2-}}S2ooS}2::S''KK\\:2[[RRk*[11RRRkskk[ZZ<[){kJ%>gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^+,2VV}$::K[*2**VVVVVVVVVV**[[[Kpruu}rl}Cazl}}r}zdl}rlld:[:[K$\aSdV:\g85d5g\daNK@g\\\Q:[:[2*222222222222\8r\r\r\r\r\uSrVrVrVrVC8C8C8C8}g}\}\}\}\}g}g}g}gl\r\}d}\}\l\}\rdr\r\r\uSuSuSuS}drVrVrVrV}\}\}\}\}\}\ggC8C8C8C8azdl5l5l5l5l5}g}g}g}g}\}\zNzNzNdKdKdKdKl@l@l@}g}g}g}g}g}gl\dQdQdQ}dl5}gzNdKl@l\l\}d}\}gN[*pK,KKKVVV77V4ppV4$HHK22KKgg$H4[[RRk*[11RRRkskk[ZZ<[){kJ%>gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgRglNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^*2gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^3=Iff%==\o3=3offffffffff33oooQzKpzzz~~z=o=o\%ifQpQ=bp=:f=p\ifQQAp_\\U=o=o=3============f=iiiiiQQQQQK=K=K=K=p\\\\pppp~\ip\\~\\ziiiiQQQQpQQQQbbbbbbppK=K=K=K=pfz=z=z=z=z=pppp\\QQQzQzQzQzQ~A~A~Apppppp~\zUzUzUpz=pQzQ~A~\~\p\pNo3w\=QNNfffMDf=f=3GG\==\\pp%G=ooee3o<>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQXgn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"X^HJS<aa}FSFFFF}oaa}<a]XX}kaaSFSS*SSSSSSSSSS]o]o]o]o]o]o]o]o]XXXXX}}}}kkkX}kNF}J}}}\\VV<xx}SS}}<xVF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS2D c1v4;HA"m^ #-AAa_'':G ' AAAAAAAAAA GGG4VTTT[TN[a/A[Nn_[N[TJN_TrRRG'G'G:AA4C:'?G%#E%hG:CA46-G?[??8'G'G' ''u''''''''''C%TATATATATAu]T4T:T:T:T:/%/%/%/%_G[:[:[:[:_G_G_G_GR?TA[C[:[:R?[:NCTATATAT4T4T4T4[CT:T:T:T:[?[?[?[?[?[?aGaG/%/%/%/%A[EN%N%N%N%N%_G_G_G_G[:[:uaT4T4T4J6J6J6J6N-N-N-_G_G_G_G_G_Gr[R?G8G8G8[CN%_GT4J6N-R?R?[C[:_GNG G:#422AAA'#aaA'VVAa'--Au::uGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@"X^?Sf}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}FFoSaSFSu}So}o}oS}}FF}F}}}}SaF}}}}ox2xS?SS*SSSSSSSSSS}FooooooooooSFSFSFSF}}}}}}}}}}o}}}}}}ooooooo}oooo}}}}}}}}SFSFSFSFa}FFFFF}}}}}}SSSaaaaFFF}}}}}}}ooo}F}SaF}}}}}NX?q}So}}}}}EN}K}K-oo}SS}}SoKF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR}{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"X^?S}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}SS}a}SFS}S}ooS}FSF}oaS}}}oc7cS?SS*SSSSSSSSSSF}}}}}oooooaFaFaFaF}}}}}}}}}}}}}oooooooo}}}}}}aFaFaFaF}FFFFF}}oooaaaaSSS}oooFoaS}}}NX?}S}}}}}}KS}K}KF}}}SS}}S}KF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSSFootnotes*rsFormats for ASTERISK footnotes'#[ P['CdP# ddf < X01Í Í1*'(Í Í #o P['Cn&P#X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:)o=3no P['C&P  &%e8.|e P['CP&8SF> P['CPd:SHvX pTCd'l80lX pTC>DS?3s\  PCP>DS??皝4  p(AC&>u![2*d[ P['CP >u![2*P[e xzCX>)o=3PRoe xzC&X&r!Y1)LY P['CP >)o=3no P['C&P &>[G' ԦGG P['C^Pds#b2+ܤbX pTCd*w=50wX pTC&oo<<<<<<<<<<< clearly appears. Ante, at 3. In other words, the sovereign's right to take subsequent action continues unless th[e] right has been specifically surrendered in terms which admit of no other reasonable interpreta J tion. St. Louis, 210 U.S., at 280. Justice Scalia finds that the presumption has been rebutted here; he,  JN like Justice Breyer, finds that the Government had made a promise that its subsequent action would not  J frustrate the contract. Justice Scalia, however, finds that obligation is contained implicitly within the promis[e] to regulate ... in a particular fashion, and the  J ԚGovernment's consideration. Ante, at 3!4.  But that is hardly what one normally thinks to be unmistakable terms. Indeed, that promise plus  J consideration is no different than what Justice Scalia  J says applies to private parties. Ante, at 3. The Govern J ment has promise[d] to do x in exchange for [respond J ents] doing y, and in so doing impliedly promise[d] notto do anything that [would] disable [the Govern JF ment] from doing x, or disable [respondents] from doing  J y"so that if either of [the parties'] performances is "   rendered impossible by such an act on [the Government's] part, [the Government] is not excused  J from [its] obligation. Ibid. (emphasis added). But more than this is required for Government contracts, as  J` Justice Scalia had seemed to acknowledge.   J8  His point about quid pro quo adds little, for it necessarily assumes that there has been a promise to provide  J a particular regulatory treatment which cannot be  J affected by subsequent action, as opposed to a promise to provide that treatment unless and until there is  Jp subsequent action. Ante, at 4. But determining which promise the Government has made is precisely what the unmistakability doctrine is designed to determine. If the Government agreed to treat the losses acquired by respondents as supervisory goodwill in the short term, but made no commitment about their regulatory treatment over the long term, respondents still received consideration. Such consideration would be especially valuable to an unhealthy thrift because it would provide a number of immediate benefits to the acquiring thrift that would stave off foreclosure. Brief for United States 27.  J  In addition, Justice Scalia does not himself make the findings necessary for respondents to prevail, but relies on the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to what the  J ԚGovernment actually promised. Ante, at 4. But both the trial court and the Court of Appeals held the  J unmistakability doctrine did not apply here. Therefore,  Jx even under Justice Scalia's own premises, these findings are insufficient because they were made under a mistaken view of the applicable law.  9H1 d d7IV؃  J<  <2  Justice Breyer in his separate concurrence follows a different route to the result reached by the plurality. But even under his own view of the law, he omits a "   necessary step in the reasoning required to hold the Government liable. He says that the lower courts held that each [respondent] proved the existence of an express promise by the Government to grant them particular regulatory treatment for a period of years.  J8 Ante, at 4. But the Government could have made that  J promise, and not made the further promise to pay respondents in the event that the regulatory regime  J changed. Justice Breyer concludes that second promise did exist as a matter of fact, but he never makes that finding himself. Instead, he says that the plurality's careful examination of the circumstances reveals that the Government did inten[d] to make a binding promise to hold the thrifts harmless from the effects of future  J regulation (or legislation). Ante, at 9. But the plurality's opinion does not treat this as a question of  J fact at all, as Justice Breyer does, but instead as something which occurs by operation of law.  J0  Justice Breyer relies on this illusory factual finding while at the same time commenting how implausible it would be for the Government to have intended to insure against a change in the law. He notes that it might seem unlikely for the Government to make such a  Jh promise, ibid., and further comments that because the contracting party is the Government, it may be far less  J likely that [the parties] intend[ed] to make a promise that will oblige the Government to hold private parties  J harmless in the event of a change in the law, ante, at 4.  Jx  The short of the matter is that Justice Breyer and  JP Justice Scalia cannot reach their desired result, any more than the plurality can, without changing the status of the Government to just another private party under the law of contracts. But 75 years ago Justice Holmes,  J speaking for the Court in Rock Island, A. & L. R. Co. v.  J United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143 (1920), said that Men must turn square corners when they deal with the`"    J Government. The statement was repeated in Federal  J Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 385 (1947). The wisdom of this principle arises, not from any ancient privileges of the sovereign, but from the necessity of protecting the federal fisc"and the taxpayers who foot the bills"from possible improvidence on the part of the countless Government officials who must be authorized to enter into contracts for the Government.  9H1 d d8V؃  2  A moment's reflection suggests that the unmis takability doctrine and the sovereign acts doctrine are not entirely separate principles. To the extent that the unmistakability doctrine is faithfully applied, the cases will be rare in which close and debatable situations under the sovereign acts doctrine are presented. I do not believe that respondents met either of these tests, and I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit outright or remand to that court for reconsideration in light of these tests as I have enunciated them.