Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 503

524US2

Unit: $U93

[09-11-00 13:25:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

458

CLINTON v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Opinion of Scalia, J.

edly been rendered less likely of receipt; the present suit, by
contrast, resembles a complaint asserting that the plaintiff ’s
chances of winning the lottery were reduced, ﬁled by a plain-
tiff who never bought a lottery ticket, or who tore it up be-
fore the winner was announced. Snake River has presented
no evidence to show that it was engaged in bargaining, and
that that bargaining was impaired by the President’s cancel-
lation of § 968. The Court says that Snake River “was en-
gaged in ongoing negotiations with the owner of a processing
plant who had expressed an interest in structuring a tax-
deferred sale when the President canceled § 968,” ante, at
432. There is, however, no evidence of “negotiations,” only
of two “discussions.” According to the afﬁdavit of Mike
Cranney:

“On or about May 1997, I spoke with Howard Phillips,
the principal owner of Idaho Potato Packers, concern-
if the Cooperative Tax Act
ing the possibility that,
were passed, Snake River Potato Growers might pur-
chase a Blackfoot, Idaho processing facility in a transac-
tion that would allow the deferral of gain. Mr. Phillips
expressed an interest in such a transaction if the Co-
operative Tax Act were to pass. Mr. Phillips also
acknowledged to me that Jim Chapman, our General
Manager, had engaged him in a previous discussion con-
cerning this matter.” App. 112.

This afﬁdavit would have set forth something of signiﬁcance
if it had said that Phillips had expressed an interest in the
transaction “if and only if the Cooperative Tax Act were to
pass.” But of course it is most unlikely he said that; Idaho
Potato Packers (IPP) could get just as much from the sale
without the Act as with the Act, so long as the price was
right. The afﬁdavit would also have set forth something of
signiﬁcance if it had said that Phillips had expressed an in-
terest in the sale “at a particular price if the Cooperative
Tax Act were to pass.” But it does not say that either.