calder v bull

8/11/2019 Calder v Bull

1/4

Calder v. Bu ll

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued February 8, 1798Decided August 8, 1798

Full casename

Calder et Wife v. Bull et Wife

Citations 3 U.S. 386(https://supreme.justia.com/us/3/386/case.html)(more )3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386; 1 L. Ed. 648; 1798 U.S.LEXIS 148

Prior history In error from the State of Connecticut

Holding

Ex post facto clause applies to criminal, not civil cases

Court membership

Chief JusticeOliver Ellsworth

Associate JusticesJames Wilson William CushingJames Iredell William Paterson

Samuel Chase

Case opinions

Majority Chase, joined by Ellsworth, Wilson, Cushing,Paterson

Concurrence Paterson

Concurrence Iredell

Calder v. Bul l From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calder v. Bul l , 3 U.S. 386 (1798), [1] is aUnited States Supreme Court case in

which the Court examined its authority toreview state legislature decisions. [1]

Contents

1 Background 2 Legal arguments

3 See also 4 References 5 Notes

Background

The Connecticut legislature ordered anew trial in a court case about the

contents of a will, overruling an earliercourt ruling. In a unanimous decision, theUnited States Supreme Court held thatthe legislature's actions did not violate theex post facto law in article 1, section 10of the Constitution, which states:

No State shall enter intoany Treaty, Alliance, orConfederation; grantLetters of Marque andReprisal; coin Money;emit Bills of Credit; makeany Thing but gold andsilver Coin a Tender inPayment of Debts; passany Bill of Attainder, expost facto Law , or Lawimpairing the Obligationof Contracts, or grant anyTitle of Nobility.

Page 1 of 4Calder v. Bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

23/09/2014http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull


2/4

An ex post facto law or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences ofacts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the

law. [2]

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. [1]

Legal arguments

In this case, the participating Supreme Court judges were: William Cushing, James Iredell, WilliamPaterson and Samuel Chase.

Justice Samuel Chase argued that the government has no authority to interfere with an individual'srights, and "the general principles of law and reason" forbid the legislature from interfering. He thenexplained that judges ought to rely on natural law when making their decisions:

The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms oftheir social compact.... There are certain vital principles in our free republicangovernments which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse oflegislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take awaythat security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereofgovernment was established. An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law)contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered arightful exercise of legislative authority.... It seems to me, that the right of property,in its origin, could only arise from compact express, or implied, and I think it the

better opinion, that the right, as well as the mode, or manner, or acquiring property,

and of alienating or transferring, inheriting, or transmitting it, is conferred bysociety...and is always subject to the rules prescribed by positive law. Justice James Iredell stated that courts cannot strike down statutes based only upon principles ofnatural justice:

[t]he ideas of natural justice are regulated by no fixed standard: the ablest and the purest men have differed upon the subject; and all that the Court could properly say,in such an event, would be, that the Legislature (possessed of an equal right ofopinion) had passed an act which, in the opinion of the judges, was inconsistent withthe abstract principles of natural justice.

Iredell affirmed the ability of the Supreme Court to review legislative acts, but based on somethingmore than principles of natural justice:

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 theUnion, or the Legislature of any member of the Union, shall pass a law, within thegeneral 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 lights, in which the subject can be viewed: 1st. If theLegislature pursue the authority delegated to them, their acts are valid...they exercisethe discretion vested in them by the people, to whom alone they are responsible forthe faithful discharge of their trust... 2nd. If they transgress the boundaries of that




3/4

authority, their acts are invalid...they violate a fundamental law, which must be ourguide, whenever we are called upon as judges to determine the validity of alegislative act.

And:

If, then, a government, composed of Legislative, Executive and Judicial departments,were established, by a Constitution, which imposed no limits on the legislative power, the consequence would inevitably be, that whatever the legislative powerchose to enact, would be lawfully enacted, and the judicial power could neverinterpose to pronounce it void. It is true, that some speculative jurists have held, thata legislative act against natural justice must, in itself, be void; but I cannot think that,under such a government, any Court of Justice would possess a power to declare itso.

Justice William Cushing agreed with the judgement, saying that:

The case appears to me to be clear of all difficulty, taken either way. If the act is a judicial act, it is not touched by the Federal Constitution: and, if it is a legislative act,it is maintained and justified by the ancient and uniform practice of the state ofConnecticut.

See also

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 3 Rule according to higher law

References

^ Full text of decision from Findlaw.com (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?

navby=CASE&court=US&vol=3&page=386)

Notes

1. ^ a b Ariens, Michael. Famous Cases Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798)

(http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/calder.htm). www.michaelariens.com.

2. ^ David P, Currie (1992). The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, 17891888 .

University of Chicago Press. p. 41. ISBN 0-226-13109-2.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calder_v._Bull&oldid=609547118"

Categories: United States Supreme Court cases Ex post facto case law

1798 in United States case law




4/4

This page was last modified on 21 May 2014 at 16:52. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional

terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profitorganization.


23/09/2014http://en wikipedia org/wiki/Calder v Bull

calder v bull

Documents