CALDER VS BULL

Facts of the case

Mr. and Mrs. Caleb Bull, the stated beneficiaries of the will of Norman Morrison, were
denied an inheritance by a Connecticut probate court. When the Bulls attempted to
appeal the decision more than a year and a half later, they found that a state law
prohibited appeals not made within 18 months of the original ruling. The Bulls persuaded
the Connecticut legislature to change the restriction, which enabled them to successfully
appeal the case. Calder, the initial inheritor of Morrison's estate, took the case to the
Supreme Court.

Question
Was the Connecticut legislation a violation of Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution,
which prohibits ex post facto laws?

Conclusion
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the legislation was not an ex post facto law.
The Court drew a distinction between criminal rights and "private rights," arguing that
restrictions against ex post facto laws were not designed to protect citizens' contract
rights. Justice Chase noted that while all ex post facto laws are retrospective, all
retrospective laws are not necessarily ex post facto. Even "vested" property rights are
subject to retroactive laws.
Calder v. Bull
1. Calder v. Bull, (1798)

2. Facts: There was a dispute over a will. A probate court decree had refused to approve
a will. The persons who were the beneficiaries of that will had the judgment set aside and
a new hearing was granted, at which the will was approved. There was a Connecticut law
that allowed the probate court to be set aside.

3. Procedural Posture: The persons who would have inherited the property if the will
was void brought an action to declare the law setting aside their initial favorable
judgment as violating the ex-post facto clause.

4. Issue: Whether the Connecticut law was valid.

5. Holding: Yes.

6. Reasoning: [Chase] reasoned that there were fundamental liberty reasons why the
law was sound. The purposes for which the constitution was written was to give effect to
a social compact wherein the government was established to protect the natural and
preexisting rights of the citizens. The nature of these rights determines the limits of the
legislative power to infrnge on these rights. The government can not have the power to
enact leglislation that violates the natural laws of civilized society that it was established
to protect, even if such natural right is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. An
example is this case, the government can not violate the right of an antecedent lawful
private contract or the right of private property.

7. Dissent Reasoning: [Iredell] stated that the citizens had framed their constitution to
define the precise boundaries of the leglislative power. Thus, if the legislature violates
this power, its act is certainly void. However, if the legislature passes a law within its
consitutional boundaries, the judiciary does not have the power to use subjective
determinations of what is contrary to natural law to strike it down.