Also known as:prohibition of ex post facto law · ex post facto prohibition · ex post facto prohibitions · ex post facto clause · ban on retroactive laws
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional prohibition that bars legislatures from enacting criminal laws that retroactively criminalize conduct lawful when performed, increase punishment for completed offenses, or alter rules of evidence to the defendant's disadvantage.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
3
Revived Prosecution After Limitations Bar
Parker Phillips completed a series of financial transactions in 1995. The applicable statute of limitations expired in 2000 without any charges filed. In 2003 Congress enacted a statute that revived the expired limitations period and authorized prosecution for those same transactions. Prosecutors then indicted Parker under the new statute.
Sentencing Guidelines Applied Retroactively
Preston Pratt was convicted of an offense committed in 1997. At sentencing the court applied 2005 guidelines that raised the applicable range above the range in effect at the time of the offense. The higher range increased the minimum term Preston faced.
United States v. Turner548 F.3d 1094, 1097-1098 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
In 1998, while serving as a volunteer driver for the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Turner struck up a romantic relationship with Vester Mayo, a nurse at the Medical Center. Vester died in December 2000. She had taken out a life insurance policy through a federally-administered program. Her beneficiary designation form, contained in her personnel file, listed Turner and her mother, Lorenza Mayo, as co-beneficiaries.
In January 2001, Turner filed a claim for his share of the life insurance benefits and later received a money market account valued at $20,562.90. In preparing her claim, Lorenza examined her daughter’s papers and concluded that Vester’s beneficiary designation form contained forgeries. The dates on the form were inconsistent, Lorenza’s name and address were misspelled, and Vester’s social security number was incorrect. Lorenza reported this to federal authorities.
The ensuing investigation revealed that shortly after obtaining his life insurance payout, Turner wrote a $1,000 check from the proceeds to his friend, LaTanya Andrews. Andrews was a payroll technician at the Medical Center who had worked in the human resources section housing employees’ personnel files. A government agent interviewed her in November 2005. At first Andrews said she never received more than $10 from Turner, but when shown the check she gave conflicting accounts about its purpose, and agents found nothing in her bank records to support her claims.
The grand jury charged Turner and Andrews with conspiracy to defraud the United States and bribery. Evidence showed that Vester’s signature on the beneficiary form had been forged, that Andrews had easy access to Vester’s personnel file, and that Lorenza saw Turner forge her daughter’s signature on two checks. The jury convicted both defendants on both counts after a trial.
Turner was sentenced in September 2007 to 33 months’ imprisonment. He appealed his conviction and sentence to the D.C. Circuit.
Pablo Perez completed a series of sexual offenses before Kansas enacted its Sexually Violent Predator Act. After release from prison the state sought to commit Pablo under the new statute based solely on those pre-enactment acts. The commitment proceeding turned on whether the statute imposed additional punishment for the earlier conduct.
Kansas v. Hendricks521 U.S. 346 (1997)
In 1994, the Kansas Legislature enacted the Sexually Violent Predator Act, which established procedures for the civil commitment of persons who, due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder, are likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence. Leroy Hendricks had a long history of sexually molesting children, beginning with a 1955 conviction for indecent exposure, followed by convictions for lewdness involving a young girl in 1957, molesting two young boys in 1960, indecent liberties with a child in 1965, and taking indecent liberties with two 13-year-old boys in both 1984 and 1994.
As Hendricks neared the end of his prison term in 1994, the State filed a petition in state court seeking to have him committed under the Act. Hendricks challenged the constitutionality of the Act but did not contest that he met the statutory definition of a sexually violent predator. At trial, Hendricks testified that he suffers from pedophilia, that he is not cured, and that when he gets stressed out he cannot control the urge to molest children. The jury unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that Hendricks was a sexually violent predator.
The trial court determined that the Act was constitutional and ordered him committed to the custody of the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the commitment order. It held that the Act violated Hendricks’ substantive due process rights because it did not require a finding that he was unable to control his violent behavior. The court did not address the Act’s procedural due process or double jeopardy claims.
The State of Kansas petitioned for certiorari, and Hendricks filed a cross-petition reasserting his federal double jeopardy and ex post facto claims. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on both the petition and the cross-petition.
What conduct does the prohibition on ex post facto laws forbid?
It forbids retroactive criminal laws that make previously lawful conduct criminal, increase punishment for completed offenses, or change evidentiary rules to the defendant's disadvantage. The prohibition protects fair notice by ensuring individuals can rely on the law in effect when they act.
Supporting sources
Does the prohibition apply to civil regulatory measures?
No. The prohibition applies only to criminal punishment. Civil measures such as sex-offender registration remain valid even when applied to prior offenses unless the measure is so punitive in effect that it overrides the legislature's civil intent.
Supporting sources
May a legislature revive a time-barred criminal prosecution?
No. Extending a statute of limitations after it has already expired and applying the extension to past conduct violates the prohibition because it reopens the possibility of punishment for acts that could no longer be prosecuted.
Supporting sources
Does the prohibition bar retroactive increases in sentencing ranges?
Yes. Applying a new statute or guideline that raises the maximum or mandatory minimum sentence to conduct completed before its enactment increases punishment after the fact and is therefore invalid.
Supporting sources
521 U.S. 346 (1997)
…of a mental condition. The Act therefore comports with due process. Pp. 356–360. 2. The Kansas Act does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause . That Clause applies to criminal statutes. California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales , 514 U. S. 499, 504. The Kansas Act is civil, not criminal, in nature. The Court ordinarily…