Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 600.0

529US2

Unit: $U52

[09-26-01 10:36:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 513 (2000)

525

Opinion of the Court

made it greater than it was when committed; or which
changed the punishment, and inﬂicted a greater pun-
ishment than the law annexed to the crime when com-
mitted; or which altered the legal rules of evidence,
and received less or different testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offence,
in order to convict the offender.”
1 Commentaries on
American Law 408 (3d ed. 1836) (Lecture 19).

This Court, moreover, has repeatedly endorsed this under-
standing, including, in particular, the fourth category (some-
times quoting Chase’s words verbatim, sometimes simply
paraphrasing). See Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U. S. 433, 441, n. 13
(1997); Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U. S. 282, 293 (1977); Malloy
v. South Carolina, 237 U. S. 180, 183–184 (1915); Mallett v.
North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589, 593–594 (1901); Thompson
v. Missouri, 171 U. S. 380, 382, 387 (1898); Hawker v. New
York, 170 U. S. 189, 201 (1898) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Gib-
son v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565, 589–590 (1896); Duncan
v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377, 382 (1894); Hopt v. Territory
of Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 589 (1884); Kring v. Missouri, 107
U. S. 221, 228 (1883), overruled on other grounds, Collins
v. Youngblood, 497 U. S. 37 (1990); Gut v. State, 9 Wall. 35,
38 (1870); Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 390–391 (1867)
(Miller, J., dissenting); Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277,
325–326, 328 (1867). State courts, too, in the years following
Calder, adopted Justice Chase’s four-category formulation.
See Boston & Gunby v. Cummins, 16 Ga. 102, 106 (1854);
Martindale v. Moore, 3 Blackf. 275, 277 (Ind. 1833); Davis
v. Ballard, 24 Ky. 563, 578 (1829); Strong v. State, 1 Blackf.
193, 196 (Ind. 1822); Dickinson v. Dickinson, 7 N. C. 327, 330
(1819); see also Woart v. Winnick, 3 N. H. 473, 475 (Super.
Ct. 1826).14

14 The reception given the four categories contrasts with that given
to Calder’s actual holding—that the Ex Post Facto Clause applies only to
criminal laws, not to civil laws. The early criticism levied against that
holding, see, e. g., Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Pet. 380, 416, 681–687 (App. I)