RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION Flashcards
CONTRACT CLAUSE—IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT
- K Clause limits ability of states to enact laws that retroactively impair K rights.
- Does not affect Ks not yet made
Not Applicable to Federal Government
- No comparable clause applicable to fed gov, although an obvious K impairment would be forbidden by 5th Amend DPC
Only Applicable to State Legislation
- Provision applies only to state legislation, not court decisions
Basic Impairment Rules: Private Contracts
- K Clause prevents only substantial impairments of K (i.e., destruction of most/all of party’s rights under K)
- However, not all substantial impairments are invalid
- In determining whether legislation is valid under K Clause, use a 3-part test:
1) Does legislation substantially impair party’s rights under an existing K? - If it does not, legislation is valid under K Clause.
- If it does, it will be valid only if it:
2) Serves an important & legitimate public interest; and
3) Is a reasonable & narrowly tailored means of promoting that interest.
Public Contracts—Stricter Scrutiny
- Public Ks (i.e., those in which the state/political subdivision is a party) are tested by the same basic test detailed above; however, they will likely receive stricter scrutiny, especially if legislation reduces contractual burdens on state.
- When applying the 3-part test, note:
1) There is no substantial impairment if state has reserved power to revoke, alter, or amend either in the K itself/in a statute/law the terms;
2) In determining whether the law serves as a legitimate public interest, note that the state cannot be obligated by K to refrain from exercising its police powers necessary to protect the health & safety of its residents; and
3) To be narrowly tailored, the law should not constitute an unnecessarily broad repudiation of K obligations.
EX POST FACTO LAWS
Two Ex Post Facto Clauses
- Neither state nor fed gov may pass an ex post facto law.
- An ex post facto law: legislation that retroactively alters the criminal law (not civil regulation, like denial of professional licenses) in a substantially prejudicial way that deprives a person of any right previously enjoyed for the purpose of punishing person for some past activity.
What Is “Criminal”
If a law’s purpose is civil rather than punitive, it is not an ex post facto law unless its effect is so clearly punitive as to negate the legislature’s intention
Retroactive Alterations
A statute retroactively alters a law in a substantially prejudicial manner if it:
1) Makes an act criminal that was innocent when done;
2) Prescribes greater punishment for an act than was prescribed for the act when it was committed; or
3) Reduces the evidence required to convict a person of a crime from what was required at the time that the act was allegedly committed.
Distinguish—Procedural Changes
- Mere procedural changes in state law will not necessarily trigger the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- A modified law can be applied to a crime committed before the law’s modification if D had notice of the possible penalty & modified law does not increase burden on D
Indirect “Application” to Courts
- Although the Ex Post Facto Clauses prohibit only retroactive legislation, SC has held that due process prohibits courts from retroactively interpreting criminal law in an unexpected and indefensible way
- EX. state SC’s abolition of CL “year & a day rule” (which prohibits prosecution for murder if vic dies more than a year after an attack) was not unexpected & indefensible b/c medical science has undermined the rule’s usefulness & the rule has already been abolished in most jurisdictions]
BILLS OF ATTAINDER
- Legislative act that inflicts punishment w/o a judicial trial upon individuals who are designated either by name/in terms of past conduct.
- Past conduct acts to define who those particular persons are
Two Clauses
- Fed & state govs are prohibited from passing bills of attainder.
Two Requirements Preclude Finding of Bill of Attainder
- Provisions require judicial machinery for trial & punishment of crime & definition of criminal conduct in such general terms as not to include w/in definition a single individual/small group for punishment b/c of past behavior.
Nixon Case
- Congress passed legislation to authorize gov control of presidential papers & tape recordings of former President Nixon.
- SC held that this was not a bill of attainder.
- The circumstances of the Nixon resignation made him a unique “class of one” as to the need to control his papers.
- The act was held “nonpunitive” & in pursuance of important public policy.
Draft Registration Case
- Court upheld a fed statute denying financial aid for higher education to male students between ages of 18 & 26 who had failed to register for the draft.
- The law required applicants for the aid to file a statement w/ their institutions of higher learning certifying their compliance.
- Failure to register w/in 30 days of one’s 18th birthday was a felony, but regulations allowed men who failed to register in a timely manner to qualify for aid by registering late.
- Court found that this was not a bill of attainder.
- The law reasonably promoted nonpunitive goals & was not a legislative punishment taken on the basis of any irreversible act, since aid was awarded to those who registered late.
- Court also found the statute did not violate 5th Amend privilege against self-incrimination.
