Judicial branch · Landmark case
Calder v. Bull
3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798) · Seriatim Opinions
What you should know
This page explains the Court’s holding in plain language, where the official text lives, and what to check next.
Supreme Court findings are not news summaries. The controlling document is the Court’s opinion, plus any concurrences or dissents. Use this profile to understand the holding, then verify language, syllabus, and docket history on official sources before relying on a secondary account. This is one of the earliest cases the Court ever decided — each justice wrote a separate opinion, a common practice at the time, rather than one opinion joined by all.
The Court held that the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause applies only to criminal laws, not civil laws. A Connecticut legislature resolution that reopened a probate case and effectively overturned a lower court’s ruling, though clearly retroactive, was not an ex post facto law because it didn’t define a new crime or increase punishment for one.
Background
A Connecticut probate court refused to approve a will, effectively awarding an inheritance to Caleb Bull and his wife. The Connecticut legislature then passed a resolution granting a new hearing, which reversed the outcome in the Calders’ favor — then Bull challenged that legislative do-over as an unconstitutional ex post facto law, retroactively changing the legal rules after the fact.
The Court unanimously disagreed. Justice Chase’s opinion, the most influential of the four, drew a sharp line: ex post facto laws are specifically laws that criminalize past conduct or increase punishment retroactively. A retroactive civil law affecting property or inheritance rights, however unfair it might feel, simply isn’t what the clause was written to prevent.
Still the controlling definition of “ex post facto,” over 225 years later.
Calder’s criminal-only reading of the Ex Post Facto Clause has never been overturned and remains the standard test courts apply today. Justice Chase’s opinion also floated an early, and ultimately unadopted, theory that some legislative acts might violate fundamental natural-rights principles even without a specific constitutional text forbidding them — an idea that shaped later debates over unenumerated rights.
Vote and authorship
| Opinions (seriatim) | Chase, J.; Paterson, J.; Iredell, J.; Cushing, J. — each writing separately, all reaching the same result |
|---|---|
| Not participating | Ellsworth, C.J. |
| Dissent | None |
Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law.
Justice Chase · Calder v. Bull
How it fits in government
Judicial branch
One of the earliest cases interpreting the Constitution’s specific textual limits on legislative power — and a rare early instance of justices explaining their reasoning individually rather than as a unified Court.
Ex Post Facto Clause
Article I, Section 10 bars states from passing ex post facto laws — this case is still the controlling interpretation of exactly what that phrase covers.
State & local government
The case arose from a state legislature’s own act, and directly tests the limits the Constitution places on state lawmaking power.
Official records visitors may need
SupremeCourt.gov
Opinions, docket search, rules, and Court information.
Opinion text (FindLaw)
Readable public text of the case.
Oyez
Case abstract and justice votes.
GovInfo · U.S. Courts
Official publications and related federal court materials.
Related research paths
Ex Post Facto Clause
Article I, Section 10’s ban on retroactive criminal laws.
Bill of Attainder Clause
A related constitutional limit on legislatures acting like courts.
Natural rights and unenumerated rights
The early debate Chase’s opinion touched on, later revisited in very different contexts.
Landmark cases guide
Other holdings from the Court’s earliest years.