dissenting.
I join in the result proposed by Judge Melloy’s dissent. Norris’s signed and nearly accepted plea agreement should be enforced. I write separately because I believe we should reach this result for a different reason, and I disagree with the size of the step Judge Melloy would have us take.
Judge Gruender’s plurality opinion starts with Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 104 S.Ct. 2543, 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984), and notes Norris has not triggered a due process right to enforce his plea agreement, as it was not yet accepted by the district court. In Mabry, the Supreme Court established a bright line rule when it held: “A plea bargain standing alone is without constitutional significance; in itself it is a mere executory agreement which, until embodied in the judgment of a court, *1056does not deprive an accused of liberty or any other constitutionally protected interest.” Id. at 507, 104 S.Ct. 2543. What the plurality does not consider, is that Mabry was a habeas corpus case. The petitioner needed to implicate the Constitution in order to sustain his claim. Such is not the case here. The question thus becomes: Can we enforce Norris’s plea agreement in the face of Mabry? I believe we can.
It is true we have previously used language which seemingly precludes a departure from the Mabry bright line rule, even outside of the habeas corpus context. See United States v. McGovern, 822 F.2d 739, 746 (8th Cir.1987) (“[A] defendant is not justified in relying on the terms of the plea agreement until the judge approves it and accepts the guilty plea.”); United States v. Walker, 927 F.2d 389, 390 (8th Cir.1991) (“Surely neither party contemplates any benefit from the agreement unless and until the trial judge approves the bargain and accepts the guilty plea. Neither party is justified in relying substantially on the bargain until the trial court approves it.”). As Judge Melloy makes clear, however, both McGovern and Walker are factually distinguishable from the present case. The district court in McGovern rejected the plea agreement. McGovern, 822 F.2d at 742. In contrast, in the instant case, there was absolutely no indication the district court would have rejected the plea. In fact, as the district court had already fulfilled most of its Rule 11 requirements before the government interrupted with its “clarification,” there is every indication the court would have accepted the plea agreement. In Walker, the plea agreement had already been accepted by the district court, and the issue was whether the government had breached the agreement because the probation office acted contrary to its terms at the district court’s direction. Walker, 927 F.2d at 390. We found the district court had essentially rejected the plea agreement when it directed the probation office to act contrary to its terms. Id. at 391. Again, in the instant case, the facts strongly suggest the district court would have accepted rather than rejected the plea agreement. More importantly, in Walker we held: “As a general rule, then, we think that either party should be entitled to modify its position and even withdraw its consent to the bargain until the plea is tendered and the bargain as it then exists is accepted by the court.” Id. at 390 (emphasis added). This language does not present the bright line rule of Mabry. Our use of the phrase “general rule” leaves open the possibility of an exception. The instant case presents a prime situation in which to invoke such an exception.
We have never before been confronted by a situation like the one presented here — where the defendant and government have signed a plea agreement; the defendant has literally reached the last point in the proceedings before the court accepts his plea; the defendant has relied on the agreement such that he testified under oath about his guilt; and the court has shown every indication it will accept the plea. These facts, combined with the improper behavior of the government, justify a deviation from the general rule.
Judge Melloy’s dissent circumvents Ma-bry by presenting another way to look at plea agreements — as simple contracts which become enforceable upon signing. Even in the face of United States v. Young, 223 F.3d 905 (2000), this presents an extension of our law. I am not prepared to take such a large step. Utilizing this analysis would undoubtedly broaden the enforcement of plea agreements. As soon as there is a signed plea agreement between the government and a defendant, this contract could be enforced and there would be no need for detrimental reliance. Drawing the line this early in the process *1057creates an imbalance of power. While the government would be bound at the time of signing, the defendant could not be similarly bound with regard to his plea. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d) (“A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty ... before the court accepts the plea, for any reason or no reason.”). In addition, the government raises the legitimate question of whether, under this analysis, an agreement might be enforced even in the face of new evidence.11
I agree with the plurality insofar as it reaffirms that a plea agreement is more than simply a contract. We have adopted language from the Fourth Circuit explicitly accepting that not only do federal plea agreements implicate individual constitutional rights, they actually implicate much more: “[WJith respect to federal prosecutions, the courts’ concerns run even wider than protection of the defendant’s individual constitutional rights — to concerns for the honor of the government, public confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the effective administration of justice in a federal scheme of government.” United States v. Thompson, 403 F.3d 1037, 1039 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Haney, 791 F.2d 294, 300 (4th Cir. 1986)) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In addition, as Judge Melloy reminds us, guilty pleas also carry great significance — significance which triggers protection from the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. In this case and on these facts, we should keep these concerns about honor, justice, and fundamental fairness paramount in our minds and enforce the plea agreement. We should do so because Norris fulfilled his end of the bargain.
Rule 11 implies that the plea agreement’s terms are fixed when the hearing begins. “The parties must disclose the plea agreement in open court when the plea is offered, unless the court for good cause allows the parties to disclose the plea agreement in camera.” Fed. R.Crim.P. 1 1(c)(2). “The requirement of the Rule for full disclosure was intended, not only to permit the court to pass on the validity of the plea, but also to insure that all the terms of the agreement will be fully understood and agreed to by both parties.” United States v. Roberts, 570 F.2d 999, 1006 (D.C.Cir.1977). The plea agreement is reached and signed prior to the Rule 11 proceedings. Rule 11 proceedings begin:
If it has not previously been established, determine whether the plea is being made pursuant to a plea agreement of any kind. If so, require disclosure of the terms of the agreement (or if the agreement is in writing, require that a copy be produced for your inspection and filing). See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(2).
Bankbook for U.S. District Court Judges § 2.01(B) (4th ed.2000). This is done even before the oath is administered to the defendant. Id. at § 2.01(C). Here, the agreement was not fully disclosed until after Norris completed most of the Rule 11 inquiry. Fixing the agreement’s terms at the hearing’s outset also implements the Rule’s mandate that “[t]he court must not participate in these [plea agreement] discussions.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1). See United States v. Gallington, 488 F.2d 637, *1058640 (8th Cir.1973) (“Judges are not to participate in the bargaining; their role is to be limited to acceptance or rejection of agreements after a thorough review of all relevant factors.”).
In light of the foregoing, we must consider the timing of AUSA Mahoney’s interjection. Here, the government, in attempting to “clarify” a provision in the plea agreement during the colloquy, im-permissibly involved the district court in the negotiation process. Whether AUSA Mahoney was seeking the court’s support in her interpretation of the provision is uncertain. Nevertheless, this court should not reward her behavior.
I am not accepting Judge Melloy’s complete departure from the Mabry line of cases. Instead, I am advocating a narrow exception to this court’s “general rule.” The line should be drawn, not at a defendant’s signing of his plea agreement, but at his standing in court under oath and doing everything he promised to do under that agreement. My opinion would be very different had AUSA Ambrose or AUSA Mahoney chosen any time prior to the Rule 11 proceedings to inform Norris and his counsel of the government’s new interpretation of the plea agreement. Because they waited until the end of the process during the Rule 11 proceedings and after Norris fulfilled his duties under the agreement, Norris deserves the benefit of his bargain. As such, I heartily agree with Judge Melloy’s proposed result.
For the above reasons, I dissent.
. In his first footnote, Judge Melloy claims we do not have to decide what will happen should the government obtain new information about a defendant after the plea agreement has been signed, because in the instant case the government did not obtain new information about Norris. I respectfully disagree. By not deciding, we would be further muddying the waters of this already unclear area of the law, and would provide virtually no guidance to AUSAs and district courts regarding what they should do in the face of new evidence after a plea agreement has been signed.