Washington
How Calder v. Bull applies in Washington: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law.
In Washington, the principles from Calder v. Bull reinforce the prohibition against ex post facto laws, which is explicitly affirmed in Article I, Section 23 of the Washington State Constitution. Washington courts have historically favored individual rights against retrospective legislative actions that could impact vested interests.
Washington's rule against ex post facto laws prohibits the enactment of laws that retroactively change the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the law was passed.
The Washington Supreme Court struck down a statute that altered the penalties for offenses committed prior to the law's enactment, citing violation of ex post facto principles.
The court invalidated a new law that affected parole eligibility retroactively, ensuring adherence to constitutional protections against ex post facto legislation.
This case reemphasized the court’s commitment to bar retrospective laws impacting individual rights, aligning with the federal standard articulated in Calder.
Washington's approach to ex post facto laws closely mirrors the federal standard established in Calder v. Bull, where the Supreme Court defined such laws as those that change the legal consequences of acts completed before the enactment. Both frameworks emphasize the protection of vested rights and legislative restraint against retroactive application.
Understanding ex post facto principles is crucial for the Washington bar exam, particularly in constitutional law sections where state-specific applications of these principles may be tested.