82 



contract . The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the 

 particular facts did not even warrant the application of the 

 doctrine and even if the doctrine did apply, it was not 

 sufficient to absolve the government of liability in a contract 

 that allocated risks of the regulatory change to the government 

 in a highly regulated industry. 



The Court rejected the government's distinction that 

 its actions were regulatory rather than non- regulatory . The 

 Court saw little clear distinction between the two and held that 

 the government cannot avoid contractual liability merely by 

 passing a "regulatory statute." The Court found it significant 

 that the regulatory legislation was motivated by government self 

 interest, and that it was impossible to attribute a "public and 

 general" character to FIRREA when the legislation had the 

 substantial affect of helping the government out of improvident 

 agreements. The government was not permitted to shift the costs 

 of meeting legitimate public responsibilities to private parties. 

 The Court emphasized that the government may not force some 

 people alone to bear public burdens which should be borne by the 

 public as a whole. 

 II. APPLICATIOW TO PBOBRAL TIMBER SAIiB CONTRACTS . 



Like the thrift industry, the timber industry, 

 particularly during the last two decades, has been a highly 

 regulated industry. The Supreme courts notes that thrift 

 programs were a federally conceived and assisted system to 

 provide citizens with aCCordable housing £unds through savings 



-4- sim\swhk7T9S 



