Facts
- A Connecticut probate court disapproved and refused to record the will of a decedent’s grandson, preventing the will’s beneficiaries (Bull and wife) from taking under the will.
- Connecticut law limited appeals from the probate decree to 18 months; that period expired, barring Bull and wife from appealing.
- The Connecticut legislature later enacted a special resolution setting aside the probate decree, ordering a new probate hearing, and allowing an appeal within six months.
- After the new hearing, the will was approved; Connecticut’s Superior Court and Supreme Court of Errors affirmed.
- Calder and wife claimed the property by intestate inheritance as heirs; Bull and wife claimed under the will.
- Calder sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the legislative resolution was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.
Issues
- Whether a state legislative act reopening a concluded probate matter constitutes an “ex post facto law” prohibited by Article I, § 10 of the U.S. Constitution.
- Whether the Ex Post Facto Clause applies to civil legislation affecting private property rights, or only to criminal laws.
Decision
- The Court unanimously upheld the Connecticut judgment for Bull and wife.
- The Court held the Ex Post Facto Clause applies only to criminal or penal laws, not to civil laws affecting private rights.
- Because the Connecticut resolution concerned a probate dispute and did not criminalize conduct, increase punishment, or change evidentiary rules to convict, it was not an ex post facto law.
Legal Principles
-
Article I’s Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits only criminal legislation that retroactively:
- makes previously innocent conduct criminal and punishable,
- aggravates a crime after its commission,
- increases punishment after the offense, or
- changes evidentiary rules to make conviction easier.
-
A statute may be retroactive without being an unconstitutional ex post facto law; ex post facto laws are retroactive, but not all retroactive laws are ex post facto.
-
The Court does not invalidate state legislation merely because it allegedly violates the state constitution; federal judicial review in this context depends on conflict with an enforceable federal constitutional provision.
-
Separate opinions reflected disagreement over whether courts may invalidate legislation as beyond legislative authority based on unwritten “first principles” of justice absent a specific constitutional prohibition.
Conclusion
The Court sustained a state law authorizing a new probate hearing, ruling that the federal Ex Post Facto Clause is confined to criminal laws and does not bar retroactive civil legislation governing property and private rights, while also presenting early competing views on whether courts may rely on unwritten limits on legislative power.