Calder v.

Bull
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 8, 1798
Decided August 8, 1798
Full case
name
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 Justice
Oliver Ellsworth
Associate Justices
James Wilson William Cushing
James Iredell William Paterson
Samuel Chase
Case opinions
Majority Chase, joined by Ellsworth, Wilson, Cushing,
Paterson
Concurrence Paterson
Concurrence Iredell
Calder v. Bull
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798),
[1]
is a
United States Supreme Court case in
which the Court examined its authority to
review state legislature decisions.
[1]
Contents
1 Background
2 Legal arguments
3 See also
4 References
5 Notes
Background
The Connecticut legislature ordered a
new trial in a court case about the
contents of a will, overruling an earlier
court ruling. In a unanimous decision, the
United States Supreme Court held that
the legislature's actions did not violate the
ex post facto law in article 1, section 10
of the Constitution, which states:

No State shall enter into

any Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation; grant
Letters of Marque and
Reprisal; coin Money;
emit Bills of Credit; make
any Thing but gold and
silver Coin a Tender in
Payment of Debts; pass
any Bill of Attainder, ex
post facto Law, or Law
impairing the Obligation
of Contracts, or grant any
Title of Nobility.
Page 1 of 4 Calder v. Bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
23/09/2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull
An ex post facto law or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of
acts 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, William
Paterson and Samuel Chase.
Justice Samuel Chase argued that the government has no authority to interfere with an individual's
rights, and "the general principles of law and reason" forbid the legislature from interfering. He then
explained 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 of
their social compact.... There are certain vital principles in our free republican
governments which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of
legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away
that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof
government 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 a
rightful 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 by
society...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 of
natural 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 of
opinion) had passed an act which, in the opinion of the judges, was inconsistent with
the abstract principles of natural justice.
Iredell affirmed the ability of the Supreme Court to review legislative acts, but based on something
more 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 the
Union, or the Legislature of any member of the Union, shall pass a law, within the
general 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 the
Legislature pursue the authority delegated to them, their acts are valid...they exercise
the discretion vested in them by the people, to whom alone they are responsible for
the faithful discharge of their trust... 2nd. If they transgress the boundaries of that

Page 2 of 4 Calder v. Bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

23/09/2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull
authority, their acts are invalid...they violate a fundamental law, which must be our
guide, whenever we are called upon as judges to determine the validity of a
legislative 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 power
chose to enact, would be lawfully enacted, and the judicial power could never
interpose to pronounce it void. It is true, that some speculative jurists have held, that
a 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 it
so.
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 of
Connecticut.
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
Page 3 of 4 Calder v. Bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
23/09/2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull
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-profit
organization.
Page 4 of 4 Calder v. Bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
23/09/2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull