Calder v. Bull

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Calder v. Bull
ArgueDate=February 8
ArgueYear=1798
DecideDate=August 8
DecideYear=1798
FullName=Calder et Wife v. Bull et Wife
USVol=3
USPage=386
Citation=3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386; 1 L. Ed. 648; 1798 U.S. LEXIS 148
Prior=In error from the State of Connecticut
Subsequent=
Holding=Ex post facto clause applies to criminal, not civil cases
SCOTUS=1796-1798
Majority=Chase
JoinMajority=Ellsworth, Wilson, Cushing, Paterson
1st Concurrence=Paterson
2nd Concurrence=Iredell
LawsApplied=

"Calder v. Bull", 3 U.S. 386 (1798)ref|citation, is a famous case in which the United States Supreme Court examined its authority to review state legislature decisions. cite journal
first =Michael
last =Ariens
authorlink =
coauthors =
year =
month =
title =Famous Cases Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798)
journal =
volume =
issue =
pages =
id =www.michaelariens.com
url =http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/calder.htm]

Background

The Connecticut legislature ordered a new trial in a court case about the contents of a will, overruling an earlier court ruling. In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the legislature's actions did not violate the ex post facto law in article 1, section 10 of the Constitution, which states:

An ex post facto law or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. cite book
last =David P
first =Currie
authorlink =
coauthors =
year = 1992
title =The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, 1789-1888
publisher =University of Chicago Press
location =
isbn =0-226-13109-2
ISBN status =May be invalid - please double check p. 41] cite web
title =ex post facto law
work =wikipedia.org
url =http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
accessdate=2006-09-05 ]

The holding in this case still remains good law: the ex post facto provision of the Constitution applies solely to criminal cases, not civil cases.

Legal arguments

In this case, the participating Supreme Court judges were: William Cushing, James Iredell, William Paterson and Samuel Chase. cite web
title =List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition
work =wikipedia.org
url = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_by_court_composition
accessdate=2006-09-05 ]

Justice Samuel Chase argued that the government has no authority to interfere with an individual's rights, and "the general principles of law and reason" forbid the legislature from interfering.

Justice James Iredell stated that:

Iredell was skeptical about both the existence of natural rights, and the ability of the judiciary to assess accurately the content of those rights. Throughout American constitutional history, there has been skepticism about natural rights. But in the late 18th century more Americans were comfortable with the notion of natural rights than are Americans in the early 21st century.

Iredell affirmed the ability of the Supreme Court to review the legislature by writing:

cquote|If any act of Congress, or of the Legislature of a state, violates those constitutional provisions, it is unquestionably void...If, on the other hand, the Legislature of the Union, or the Legislature of any member of the Union, shall pass a law, within the general scope of their constitutional power, the Court cannot pronounce it to be void, merely because it is, in their judgment, contrary to the principles of natural justice...

There are then but two rights, in which the subject can be viewed: 1st. If the Legislature pursue the authority delegated to them, their acts are valid...they exercise the discretion vested in them by the people, to whom alone they are responsible for the faithful discharge of their trust... 2nd. If they transgress the boundaries of that authority, their acts are invalid...they violate a fundamental law, which must be our guide, whenever we are called upon as judges to determine the validity of a legislative act.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 3

References

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=3&page=386 Full text of decision from Findlaw.com]

Notes