Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 774.0

529US3

Unit: $U56

[09-28-01 09:22:18] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 694 (2000)

699

Opinion of the Court

release, which occurred after the 1994 amendments. With
no retroactivity, there could be no Ex Post Facto Clause vio-
lation. See App. 49 (citing United States v. Abbington, 144
F. 3d 1003, 1005 (CA6), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 933 (1998)).
Other Circuits had held to the contrary, that revocation and
reimprisonment were punishment for the original offense.
From that perspective, application of § 3583(h) was retro-
active and at odds with the Ex Post Facto Clause.3 We
granted certiorari to resolve the conﬂicts, 528 U. S. 950
(1999), and now afﬁrm.

II

The heart of the Ex Post Facto Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I,
§ 9, bars application of a law “that changes the punishment,
and inﬂicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to
the crime, when committed . . . .” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall.
386, 390 (1798) (emphasis deleted). To prevail on this sort
of ex post facto claim, Johnson must show both that the law
he challenges operates retroactively (that it applies to con-
duct completed before its enactment) and that it raises the
penalty from whatever the law provided when he acted.
See California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U. S.
499, 506–507, n. 3 (1995).

A

The Sixth Circuit, as mentioned earlier, disposed of the
ex post facto challenge by applying its earlier cases holding
the application of § 3583(h) not retroactive at all: revocation

3 See, e. g., United States v. Eske, 189 F. 3d 536, 539 (CA7 1999); United
States v. Lominac, 144 F. 3d 308, 312 (CA4 1998); United States v. Dozier,
119 F. 3d 239, 241 (CA3 1997); United States v. Collins, 118 F. 3d 1394,
1397 (CA9 1997); United States v. Meeks, 25 F. 3d 1117, 1124 (CA2 1994)
(addressing § 3583(g)).
In contrast to these cases, the First and Eighth
Circuits, relying on their broader construction of § 3583(e)(3), concluded
that application of § 3583(h) did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See
United States v. Sandoval, 69 F. 3d 531 (CA1 1995) (unpublished), cert.
denied, 519 U. S. 821 (1996); United States v. St. John, 92 F. 3d 761 (CA8
1996).