p. Timothy Wirth (D-Colo.), who had replaced Van Deerlin, and Sen. Robert Packwood (R-Ore.). Packwood filed his own version of the Van Deerlin bill. Later in 1981, Wirth filed his own bill, which would have forced AT&T to spin off the Bell Operating Companies while remaining subject to strict limitations on its other activities, including manufacturing. AT&T had been hoping that the new Reagan administration would be more supportive of its interests, but the administration was divided, and the antitrust case continued. AT&T then realized that the case was not going its way, nor were any of the three branches of government particularly well dis- posed toward it position. Facing a divided executive branch, a hostile legislature, and an activist judiciary, a negotiated settlement became its best option. AT&T and the Justice Department came up with a proposed settlement. Their plan was to void the 1956 Final Judgment in New Jersey, reopen the 1949 case, move the jurisdiction to Judge Greene's court in Washington, and file a settlement under the laws in effect in 1949 when the case was first filed, rather than the laws in effect in 1974 when the pending antitrust case was filed. This would have weak- ened Judge Greene's authority, under the 1974 Tunney Act, to examine the public interest implications of the settlement and make further changes [8]. But Judge Greene was unhappy about the scheme and instead held that the parties could only enter into the settlement as a modification of the Final Judgment if they agreed to accept Tunney Act terms. And thus, in January 1982, the MFJ, breaking up the Bell System, was announced. AT&T would divest itself of its local operating companies, while keeping Western Electric and being released from the 1956 consent decree terms. Judge Greene took public comment and got to make some modest modifications of his own to the settlement in August 1982. The Supreme Court upheld it in 1983; the curtains were finally closing for good on the Bell System. The final plan split AT&T eight ways. 