Ellingburg v. United States · ¶38
Some, myself included, have questioned whether Calder was right to limit the Ex Post Facto Clauses to laws imposing criminal punishment. See, e.g., Satterlee v. Matthew- son, 2 Pet. 380, 416, and n. (a) (1829) (opinion of Johnson, J.) (arguing that the Ex Post Facto Clauses protect more); O. Field, Ex Post Facto in the Constitution, 20 Mich. L. Rev. 315, 331 (1922) (“[T]here have been reputable authorities, both past and present, who incline to the view that the ex post facto provisions of the Constitution prohibited civil as well as criminal legislation”); Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U. S. 498, 538–539 (1998) (THOMAS, J., concurring). Others have defended Calder’s limitation. See, e.g., R. Natelson, Statutory Retroactivity: The Founders’ View, 39 Idaho L. Rev. 489, 493–494 (2003); C. Nelson, Originalism and Interpretive Conventions, 70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 519, 578– 582 (2003). But…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.