Ellingburg v. United States · ¶34

The more lasting legacy of Calder, however, was its second reason. Three of the four seriatim opinions in Calder limited the Ex Post Facto Clauses to laws imposing criminal punishment. On their view, the Clauses did not forbid other kinds of retroactive laws. Justice Chase, in what has proved to be the most infuential opinion, gave a comprehensive account of the scope of the Ex Post Facto Clauses. He understood the Clauses to be limited to retroactive laws imposing criminal punishment. He explained that the Ex Post Facto Clauses covered only those laws that “create” a “crime,” “ag gravate” a crime, “encrease the punishment” for a crime, or “change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction.” Id., at 391.

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