Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Winstar Corp. v. United States Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit1995Docket #64022021
64 F.3d 1531 1995 WL 509409

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: The government induced thrifts to acquire failing S&Ls by contractually promising favorable accounting treatment. When Congress later passed a law (FIRREA) eliminating that treatment, the court found the government breached its contracts and was liable for damages.

Legal Significance: Establishes that when the U.S. government enters into contracts, it can be held liable for breach like a private party, even if the breach is caused by subsequent legislation, unless specific sovereign immunity doctrines apply.

Winstar Corp. v. United States Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

During the 1980s savings and loan crisis, federal regulators (the FSLIC and the Bank Board) induced healthy thrifts, including plaintiffs Winstar, Statesman, and Glendale, to acquire insolvent institutions to avoid massive federal insurance payouts. To make these “supervisory mergers” viable, the government contractually promised that the acquiring thrifts could count an intangible asset, “supervisory goodwill,” toward their regulatory capital requirements and amortize it over extended periods. These promises were memorialized in various documents, including Supervisory Action Agreements, Assistance Agreements, and Bank Board resolutions, which the court found constituted a bargained-for exchange. The plaintiffs relied on these promises in undertaking the mergers, saving the government billions of dollars. In 1989, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), which expressly prohibited thrifts from counting supervisory goodwill toward their capital requirements. As a result, the plaintiffs immediately fell out of regulatory compliance or suffered severe financial harm, leading them to sue the United States for breach of contract.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Is the United States liable for breach of contract when Congress enacts legislation that prevents the government from performing its obligations under prior agreements with private parties?

Yes. The United States is liable for breach of contract. The government Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Is the United States liable for breach of contract when Congress enacts legislation that prevents the government from performing its obligations under prior agreements with private parties?

Conclusion

This case affirms the principle that the government is bound by its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi u

Legal Rule

When the United States enters into a contract, it incurs rights and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt moll

Legal Analysis

The court first established the existence of express contracts. It rejected the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Government made express contractual promises allowing thrifts to count “supervisory goodwill”
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit ess

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+