Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 578

524US2

Unit: $U94

[09-11-00 13:26:39] PAGES PGT: OPLG

Cite as: 524 U. S. 498 (1998)

533

Opinion of O(cid:146)Connor, J.

lish common law, as ancient as the law itself, that a statute,
even of its omnipotent parliament, is not to have a retrospec-
tive effect”); H. Broom, Legal Maxims 24 (8th ed. 1911)
(“Retrospective laws are, as a rule, of questionable policy,
and contrary to the general principle that legislation by
which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought to
deal with future acts, and ought not to change the character
of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then
In his Commentaries on the Constitution,
existing law”).
Justice Story reasoned: “Retrospective laws are, indeed, gen-
erally unjust; and, as has been forcibly said, neither accord
with sound legislation nor with the fundamental principles
2 J. Story, Commentaries on the
of the social compact.”
Constitution § 1398 (5th ed. 1891). A similar principle
abounds in the laws of other nations. See, e. g., Gustavson
Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, 66
D. L. R. 3d 449, 462 (Can. 1975) (discussing rule that statutes
should not be construed in a manner that would impair exist-
ing property rights); The French Civil Code, Preliminary
Title, Art. 2, p. 2 (“Legislation only provides for the future;
it has no retroactive effect”) (J. Crabb transl., rev. ed. 1995);
Aarnio, Statutory Interpretation in Finland 151, in Inter-
preting Statutes: A Comparative Study (D. MacCormick &
R. Summers eds. 1991) (discussing prohibition against retro-
“Retroactive legislation,” we have ex-
active legislation).
plained, “presents problems of unfairness that are more seri-
ous than those posed by prospective legislation, because it
can deprive citizens of legitimate expectations and upset
settled transactions.” General Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503
U. S. 181, 191 (1992).

Our Constitution expresses concern with retroactive laws
through several of its provisions, including the Ex Post Facto
and Takings Clauses. Landgraf, supra, at 266.
In Calder
v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798), this Court held that the Ex Post
Facto Clause is directed at the retroactivity of penal legis-
lation, while suggesting that the Takings Clause provides