Pennsylvania
How Calder v. Bull applies in Pennsylvania: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law.
In Pennsylvania, the principles established in Calder v. Bull concerning the prohibition against ex post facto laws have been integrated into both state constitutional law and judicial interpretations. The Pennsylvania Constitution similarly prohibits ex post facto laws, ensuring that individuals are not penalized retroactively for actions that were not illegal at the time they were performed.
In Pennsylvania, an ex post facto law is defined as one that changes the legal consequences of actions taken before the law's enactment, specifically by inflicting a punishment that was not applicable at the time of the act.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a law increasing the penalty for a crime after the act was committed constituted an ex post facto law, violating the state constitution.
The court ruled that retroactive application of a statute increasing the severity of punishment was unconstitutional under Pennsylvania law.
In this case, the court clarified the test for ex post facto law applicability, affirming the principles set forth in Calder v. Bull.
Pennsylvania's approach closely mirrors the federal standard set out in Calder v. Bull, with both jurisdictions denying the retroactive application of punitive laws. However, Pennsylvania may exhibit a more stringent application given its explicit constitutional language regarding ex post facto laws.
Understanding the implications of Calder v. Bull is vital for the Pennsylvania bar exam, particularly in questions relating to constitutional protections against ex post facto laws.