1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Court Limits Good Faith Presumptions Of Government

Court Limits Good Faith Presumptions Of Government

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.14.05

In a scholarly analysis that traces the history of the presumptions of regularity and good faith duties, Judge Wolski of the Court of Federal Claims in Tecom, Inc. v. U.S. (June 27, 2005) explains the proper scope of the presumptions. Among the conclusions he draws are that (a) subjective animus and the presumption of good faith conduct of government officials has no relevance in considering a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (b) clear and convincing evidence is only needed when fraud or quasi-criminal wrongdoing is alleged; and (c) the presumption of regularity generally means only that the predicate acts that were required of public officials can be presumed upon proof of their natural results, which can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.25.24

JUST RELEASED: EPA’s Bold New Strategic Civil-Criminal Enforcement Collaboration Policy

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) just issued its new Strategic Civil-Criminal Enforcement Policy, setting the stage for the new manner in which the agency manages its pollution investigations. David M. Uhlmann, the head of OECA, signed the Policy memorandum on April 17, 2024, in order to ensure that EPA’s civil and criminal enforcement offices collaborate efficiently and consistently in cases across the nation. The Policy states, “EPA must exercise enforcement discretion reasonably when deciding whether a particular matter warrants criminal, civil, or administrative enforcement. Criminal enforcement should be reserved for the most egregious violations.” Uhlmann repeated this statement during a luncheon on April 23, 2024, while also emphasizing the new level of energy this collaborative effort has brought to the enforcement programs....

View All Insights