Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Calder v. Bull is a foundational early Supreme Court decision that sharply delineates the reach of the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clauses.
Does the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, Section 10 prohibit a state from enacting retroactive civil legislation, such as a statute or legislative resolve that permits a new hearing in a probate matter after the time to appeal has expired?
The Ex Post Facto Clauses in the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, §§ 9–10) apply only to criminal or penal laws. An ex post facto law is one that, after the commission of an offense: (1) makes an action criminal that was innocent when done and punishes it; (2) aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed; (3) increases the punishment for a crime beyond what was prescribed when the act was committed; or (4) alters the legal rules of evidence to require less or different evidence than the law required at the time of the offense to secure a conviction. Retroactive civil legislation is not within the Ex Post Facto Clause, though it may be constrained by other constitutional provisions (e.g., Due Process, Takings, Contracts Clause) or state constitutional limits.
No. The Ex Post Facto Clause restricts only criminal or penal laws. Because the Connecticut legislative resolve operated in a civil probate context and did not impose or enhance criminal punishment, it was not an ex post facto law.
Calder v. Bull is the canonical source for the rule that the Ex Post Facto Clauses apply solely to criminal laws. Its four-part definition of ex post facto continues to govern modern jurisprudence, and the case is frequently cited in decisions assessing retroactive criminal statutes (e.g., Collins v. Youngblood; Carmell v. Texas; Stogner v. California). For students, Calder also illuminates early debates about judicial review: Justice Chase's natural law-inflected dicta versus Justice Iredell's positivist insistence on written constitutional limits. That debate foreshadows later understandings of the judicial role and shapes how courts analyze retroactive civil legislation today—usually under due process, takings, or the Contracts Clause, rather than the Ex Post Facto Clause.