Also known as: retroactive law · retroactive laws · retroactive statute · retroactive statutes · retrospective legislation · ex post facto law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statute that attaches new legal consequences to conduct or transactions completed before its enactment.
Ravi Reddy signed a long-term lease with Riverfront Developments five years ago under then-existing terms. The state legislature later passed a statute that rewrote the rent escalation clauses in all existing leases to cap increases at a lower rate. Reddy invoked the new statute to refuse the higher payments demanded by the landlord. The court held that the statute could not alter the completed lease obligations.
Renee Rogers emitted carbon above newly set limits during the prior decade when no such limits existed. Congress then enacted a statute making those past emissions a federal crime and referred Rogers for prosecution. She moved to dismiss the charges. The court dismissed the case because the statute imposed criminal liability for already completed conduct.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rosalind Reed's will was denied probate in 1793 under the law then in force. The Connecticut legislature later passed a resolution granting a new hearing on the same will. The heirs challenged the resolution as retroactive legislation. The court upheld the resolution because it merely reopened a civil proceeding without creating new criminal liability.
Ryan Roberts owned waterfront property that the City of New London condemned for a private development project approved after the taking. Roberts argued that the retroactive recharacterization of the public-use justification violated due process. The court rejected the challenge and permitted the taking because the economic development plan supplied a valid public purpose at the time of condemnation.
Roger Ramirez was convicted of murder under a judicial decision that abolished the year-and-a-day rule after his crime occurred. He argued that applying the new common-law rule to his completed conduct violated due process. The court upheld the conviction because the change was a foreseeable evolution of existing precedent rather than an unpredictable retroactive creation of liability.
Riley Rivera, a distiller, entered into contracts with New York wholesalers before the state liquor authority adopted a new pricing rule. The authority later applied the rule to those existing contracts and blocked shipments. Rivera challenged the application as retroactive legislation. The court struck down the retroactive enforcement because it impaired the obligations of contracts already formed.
Retroactive legislation attaches new legal consequences to conduct completed before enactment. Prospective legislation applies only to conduct occurring after enactment. The distinction turns on whether the statute reaches back to alter the legal status of past acts.
The Constitution prohibits retroactive criminal laws through the ex post facto clauses and certain civil impairments through the contracts clause. It does not bar every civil retroactive measure. Courts examine whether the measure imposes new punishment or destroys vested rights.
Retroactive legislation violates due process when it destroys a vested property right or functions as punishment without fair notice. Mere revival of time-barred civil claims does not violate due process because statutes of limitation are policy judgments rather than vested rights.
Courts apply a multi-factor test that examines whether the measure imposes an affirmative disability, has historically been viewed as punishment, requires scienter, advances retribution or deterrence, and appears excessive relative to any nonpunitive purpose.
No. The ex post facto prohibition forbids states from making conduct criminal that was lawful when performed or from increasing punishment for completed acts. Any statute that reaches back to impose new criminal liability on past conduct is invalid.
…v. Apfel , 524 U. S. 498, 549-550 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part) (heightened scrutiny for retroactive legislation under the Due Process Clause). This demanding level of scrutiny, however, is not required simply because the purpose of the taking is economic development. This is not the occasion for…