Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group Page 13

Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group general information

Media for Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 30, 1993 in Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group

Warren J. Daheim:

For instance, in the U.S. Trust v. New Jersey, they had an extensive trial.

You build a record as to whether or not it is substantial.

We claim it's substantial because it was not only a material inducement, it was a critical inducement.

That seems to be the rule under Worthen v. Kavanaugh, under the El Paso-Simmons case.

How substantial is it?

I don't think the Government could contest the fact that these owners would simply not have entered into this contract without this provision.

Finally, on purpose, we think that whatever the level of scrutiny, we think it should be careful, at least, because the Government is here dealing with its own contracts, but on... even on a rational basis analysis, the Government cannot do this simply to save money, and that is basically their only reason.

The only other reason they now give is uniformity, which is a euphemism for saying that we want to be able to break our contract with everybody.

If there are no further questions, I thank this Court very much.

William H. Rehnquist:

Thank you, Mr. Daheim.

Mr. Dreeben, you have a minute remaining.

Michael R. Dreeben:

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

We will waive rebuttal.

William H. Rehnquist:

Very well.

The case is submitted.