Ellingburg v. United States · ¶33

In Calder v. Bull, this Court gave two reasons why the legislature's decree granting a new trial did not violate the State Ex Post Facto Clause. See Art. I, § 10, cl. 1. The first reason was that the legislature's decree operated on a legal decision by a court, not a past action by the Calders. There was nothing that the parties had done in the past that was “in any manner affected by the law or resolution of Connecticut.” 3 Dall., at 392 (opinion of Chase, J.). “It does not concern, or relate to, any act done by them.” Ibid. Instead, the decree effectively vacated a probate decision and gave the court an opportunity to correct its decision, just like appellate courts do every day. Ibid. The new hearing, after all, was conducted under the same substantive laws as were in force at the original hearing. In fact, the Justices seemed to believe that the Connecticut Legislature's “resolution…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.