Court Limits Good Faith Presumptions Of Government

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.