Jonah Patel
The US Constitution does not explicitly prohibit laws from being applied retroactively, but it does not allow ex post facto laws, which are laws that impose or increase punishment retroactively. The Supreme Court has denied ex post facto challenges to laws that impose legal consequences based on ongoing conditions that began in the past. Federal courts prioritize protecting vested, substantive rights when analyzing the retroactive effect of statutes, and some states expressly prohibit retroactive legislation. The Supreme Court has also held that statutes are not retroactive if they apply to past conduct that was also prohibited under a prior statute.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Constitutional amendments that apply retroactively | Ex post facto laws |
| Bill of Attainder | |
| Contract Clause | |
| Due Process Clauses | |
| Federal and state laws | |
| State laws in New Hampshire, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas | |
| Procedural laws | |
| Remedial laws | |
| Substantive laws | |
| Vested rights | |
| Property rights | |
| Contractual rights | |
| Criminal laws | |
| Civil laws | |
| Prospective laws |
Explore related products
![An essay on the constitutional prohibitions against legislation imparing the obligation of contracts and against retroactive and ex post facto laws by Henry Campbell Black. 1887 [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81nNKsF6dYL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
The Ex Post Facto Clause
The Supreme Court has denied ex post facto challenges to laws that impose legal consequences based not solely on past conduct but on an ongoing condition that began in the past. For example, in Murphy v. Ramsey, the Court rejected an ex post facto challenge to a law that disenfranchised bigamists and polygamists, holding that it did not retroactively impose a penalty for a crime. Similarly, in Johnson v. United States, the Court denied an ex post facto challenge to a statute authorizing additional supervision for persons who violate the conditions of their initial term of supervised release.
There is a strong presumption in the United States that ex post facto laws are against natural right and unfair, as individuals should have the opportunity to know what the law is and conform their conduct accordingly. This presumption is deeply rooted in US jurisprudence and is expressed in several constitutional provisions, including the Ex Post Facto Clause. However, some nations with a Westminster system of government may allow ex post facto laws due to the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy.
Core Constitution vs Amendments
You may want to see also
The Contract Clause
The Supreme Court has held that the Contract Clause does not generally prevent states from enacting laws to protect the welfare of their citizens. States retain some authority to enact laws with retroactive effect that alter contractual or other legal relations among individuals and entities. For example, in the case of *Honeyman v. Jacobs*, the Court upheld New York State legislation that denied a deficiency judgment in a foreclosure suit to a mortgagee of real property. The Court stated that mortgagees are constitutionally entitled to no more than payment in full, and that the Contract Clause does not protect strategic, procedural advantages.
The Supreme Court's views on the level of protection that the Contract Clause provides for contract rights have shifted over time. In the early 20th century, the Court interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to routinely invalidate state social and economic legislation based on notions of liberty and property characteristic of laissez-faire economics.
The Constitution: First Amendment's Home
You may want to see also
The Due Process Clause
Procedural due process concerns the procedures that the government must follow before depriving an individual of "life, liberty, or property". This includes procedural protections such as notice and a hearing before the termination of entitlements, such as publicly funded medical insurance.
Substantive due process is a guarantee of some fundamental rights, such as the right to marry, the right to use contraception, and the right to abortion. The Court has also construed the Clause to protect substantive due process, holding that there are certain fundamental rights that the government may not infringe, even if it provides procedural protections.
Post-Confinement Force: Which Amendment Applies?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Bill of Attainder Clause
The United States Constitution forbids legislative bills of attainder at both the federal and state levels. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution states that "No Bill of Attainder or ex Post Facto Law shall be passed". This clause serves two main purposes. Firstly, it reinforces the separation of powers by prohibiting the legislature from performing judicial or executive functions, which a bill of attainder would inherently do. Secondly, it embodies the concept of due process, which is further reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has invalidated laws under the Attainder Clause on five occasions. Two of the Supreme Court's first decisions on the meaning of the bill of attainder clause came after the American Civil War. In Ex parte Garland (1866), the court struck down a federal law requiring attorneys practising in federal court to swear that they had not supported the rebellion. In Cummings v. Missouri (1867), the Missouri Constitution required anyone seeking a professional license from the state to swear that they had not supported the rebellion. The Supreme Court overturned the law and the constitutional provision, arguing that those admitted to practice were subject to punishment without a judicial trial.
In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977), the Supreme Court upheld the law, arguing that specificity alone did not invalidate the act because the President constituted a "class of one". The Court modified its punishment test, concluding that only those laws that historically offended the bill of attainder clause were invalid.
Citing the Constitution: Amendments and Their Sources
You may want to see also
State-level prohibitions on retroactive legislation
The Ex Post Facto Clauses in the US Constitution prohibit laws that impose or increase punishment retroactively. These clauses apply to both federal and state laws.
The US Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws applies to state laws as well as federal laws. Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution explicitly prohibits states from passing any laws that apply ex post facto. This means that states are not allowed to pass laws that retroactively criminalize behaviour or increase the punishment for a crime after it has been committed.
State supreme courts, such as the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, have also played a role in interpreting and enforcing these prohibitions. For example, in the case of Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma found that the Oklahoma Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) was punitive in nature, even if it was not intended to be. While the law itself was not retroactive, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections had been applying it retroactively. The court ruled that the retroactive application of the law was not allowed.
In addition to the US Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws, some states have their own constitutional provisions that prohibit retroactive legislation. For example, the Illinois Constitution has an Ex Post Facto Clause that provides the same protection as the US Constitution.
Some common-law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, although new precedent generally applies to events that occurred before the judicial decision. In the US, appellate courts sometimes announce new rules of law but do not apply them to the case in front of them to comply with ex post facto prohibitions. For example, in Rogers v. Tennessee (2000), the appellate court abolished the "Year and a Day Rule" but did not apply this change retroactively to the case, upholding the conviction.
Overall, while there is no explicit mention of "state-level prohibitions on retroactive legislation" in the sources provided, it is clear that states are bound by the US Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws and must ensure that their laws do not impose or increase punishment retroactively.
Amendments: Who Proposes Changes to State Constitutions?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the US Constitution does not allow laws to be applied retroactively. However, the Constitution does not prohibit laws that retroactively remove or reduce the burden placed on people who have already been sentenced.
The Ex Post Facto Clause is a provision in the US Constitution that prohibits the federal and state governments from passing laws with retroactive effect, particularly those that impose or increase punishment retroactively.
The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting and applying the Ex Post Facto Clause. It has held that there is a presumption against statutory retroactivity, especially when it involves contractual or property rights. The Court considers whether individuals had notice of the law and an opportunity to conform their conduct accordingly.
