Calder v. Bull
1798 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Calder v. Bull?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law.
Calder v. Bull | |
---|---|
Argued February 8, 1798 Decided August 8, 1798 | |
Full case name | Calder et Wife v. Bull et Wife |
Citations | 3 U.S. 386 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | In error from the State of Connecticut |
Holding | |
The Ex Post Facto Clause applies to criminal, not civil, cases. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Chase, joined by Ellsworth, Wilson, Cushing |
Concurrence | Paterson |
Concurrence | Iredell |
First, the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution applies to criminal laws that have at least one of four effects:
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.[1]
The decision restates this categorization later as laws "that create, or aggregate, the crime; or encrease [sic] the punishment, or change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction" [emphasis in the original].[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Second, the Supreme Court lacked the authority to nullify state laws that violate that state's constitution:
this court has no jurisdiction to determine that any law of any state Legislature, contrary to the Constitution of such state is void.[1]
Third, the Supreme Court said that:
no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. [emphasis in the original][1]
Fourth, the Supreme Court decided that this specific act of the Connecticut legislature, and any other state legislative act, is not a violation of the ex post facto clause if
there is no fact done by Bull and wife, Plaintiff's in Error, that is in any manner affected by the law or resolution of Connecticut: It does not concern, or relate to, any act done by them. [emphasis in the original][1]