Opinion ID: 454618
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ex Post Facto Law/Bill of Attainder

Text: 8 An ex post facto law is 'the imposition of what can fairly be designated punishment for past acts'    [I]f a statute is enacted to punish a class, rather than regulate a 'present situation,' then the statute may violate the ex post facto clause. Jensen v. Schweiker, 709 F.2d at 1230 (quoting De Veau Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 146, 80 S.Ct. 1146, 1147, 4 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1960) ). In order to constitute a bill of attainder, a statute must impose a punishment upon a designated person or class of persons without the benefit of trial. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 468, 97 S.Ct. 2777, 2803, 53 L.Ed.2d 867 (1977); United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 445, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1713, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965). 9 We agree with the Secretary that the statute is neither an ex post facto law nor a bill of attainder because the suspension of a noncontractual benefit cannot be considered a punishment. In Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. at 617, 80 S.Ct. at 1376, the Supreme Court held that the sanction [of] the mere denial of a noncontractual benefit without more did not evidence a Congressional intent to punish. The Court noted that [n]o affirmative disability or restraint [wa]s imposed   . Id. Although in this case there is some indication that Congress intended the statute in part to be punitive, Jensen v. Schweiker, 709 F.2d at 1230 (citations therein); Pace v. United States, 585 F.Supp. at 401 & n. 4, this Court need not invalidate the statute. Where, as here,  'the rational connection' to nonpunitive ends remains as a rationale for enacting this provision, a court should not  'reject all those alternatives    save that one which might require invalidation of the statute.'  Pace v. United States, 585 F.Supp. at 401 (quoting Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. at 621) (80 S.Ct. at 1378). See also Anderson v. Social Security Administrator, 567 F.Supp. at 412-13 (Sec. 423(f) remedial rather than punitive). 10 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 3