Ex post facto laws are not constitutional. So a state can't pass a law
in 2021 saying that X is illegal and then charge people who did X in
2020, even if the person *knew* the law was passed and would be taking
effect some time in the future and they did X when they did in order to
avoid the law.

But if a state passed a law Jan 1at 2020 and it was enjoined immediately
after due to questions of constitutionality and then, in 2021, it was
ruled that is was, indeed, constitutional/enforceable, has it ever been
decided that someone who committed X in 2020 *after* the law was to take
effect but while the law was enjoined either can be tried for a
violation of the law or that they definitely can NOT be charged?

If such a decision has been made, did it matter if the law went into
effect (even if just for a second) or if it was enjoined before it was
to take effect?

I'm just thinking about language in SB-8 that deals specifically with
that in saying that if there is a hold on SB-8 and it's later lifted,
then people could be sued for actions committed during the hold. I've
never noticed such in any other law (of course, I haven't *read* every
other law so it could actually be pretty common to have such language.)

And I'm not trying to give opinions on the abortion issue in either
direction but I do, personally, think that SB-8 is one of the worst
travesties of justice ever with the way it tries to skirt around constitutional/judicial review.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/13/2021 6:54 AM, Mike Anderson wrote:

Ex post facto laws are not constitutional. So a state can't pass a law
in 2021 saying that X is illegal and then charge people who did X in
2020, even if the person *knew* the law was passed and would be taking
effect some time in the future and they did X when they did in order to
avoid the law.

But if a state passed a law Jan 1at 2020 and it was enjoined immediately after due to questions of constitutionality and then, in 2021, it was
ruled that is was, indeed, constitutional/enforceable, has it ever been decided that someone who committed X in 2020 *after* the law was to take effect but while the law was enjoined either can be tried for a
violation of the law or that they definitely can NOT be charged?

If such a decision has been made, did it matter if the law went into
effect (even if just for a second) or if it was enjoined before it was
to take effect?

I'm just thinking about language in SB-8 that deals specifically with
that in saying that if there is a hold on SB-8 and it's later lifted,
then people could be sued for actions committed during the hold. I've
never noticed such in any other law (of course, I haven't *read* every
other law so it could actually be pretty common to have such language.)

And I'm not trying to give opinions on the abortion issue in either
direction but I do, personally, think that SB-8 is one of the worst travesties of justice ever with the way it tries to skirt around constitutional/judicial review.

If a court decides that the law is unconstitutional, then it is "null
and void" -- of no effect. As if it hadn't been passed.

If a higher court (or the same court) overrules that and says the law is constitutional, then it's as if the law were newly passed.

Bt as a general rule, the "ex post facto" rule applies only to crimes.
Some years back Congress made a substantial change to the tax law in the
middle of a year. Some companies objected: they had done things a
certain way that the old rule encouraged, in hopes of a tax benefit. Now
they were being denied that benefit.

The Supreme Court ruled that COngress could do that. I suspect the same
would apply to civil suits.

So the language about lawsuits for acts committed while the law is
temporarily held unconstitutional *might* be allowed. Or might not. I
don't think something like this has ever been tried before.

And, like you, I think it's despicable. Also a very bad idea. The same
weapon could be used against things like the right to keep and bear arms.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/13/2021 12:56 PM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 11/13/2021 6:54 AM, Mike Anderson wrote:

Ex post facto laws are not constitutional. So a state can't pass a law
in 2021 saying that X is illegal and then charge people who did X in
2020, even if the person *knew* the law was passed and would be taking
effect some time in the future and they did X when they did in order
to avoid the law.

But if a state passed a law Jan 1at 2020 and it was enjoined
immediately after due to questions of constitutionality and then, in
2021, it was ruled that is was, indeed, constitutional/enforceable,
has it ever been decided that someone who committed X in 2020 *after*
the law was to take effect but while the law was enjoined either can
be tried for a violation of the law or that they definitely can NOT be
charged?

If such a decision has been made, did it matter if the law went into
effect (even if just for a second) or if it was enjoined before it was
to take effect?

I'm just thinking about language in SB-8 that deals specifically with
that in saying that if there is a hold on SB-8 and it's later lifted,
then people could be sued for actions committed during the hold. I've
never noticed such in any other law (of course, I haven't *read* every
other law so it could actually be pretty common to have such language.)

And I'm not trying to give opinions on the abortion issue in either
direction but I do, personally, think that SB-8 is one of the worst
travesties of justice ever with the way it tries to skirt around
constitutional/judicial review.

If a court decides that the law is unconstitutional, then it is "null
and void" -- of no effect. As if it hadn't been passed.

If a higher court (or the same court) overrules that and says the law is constitutional, then it's as if the law were newly passed.

Bt as a general rule, the "ex post facto" rule applies only to crimes.
Some years back Congress made a substantial change to the tax law in the middle of a year. Some companies objected: they had done things a
certain way that the old rule encouraged, in hopes of a tax benefit. Now
they were being denied that benefit.

The Supreme Court ruled that COngress could do that. I suspect the same
would apply to civil suits.

So the language about lawsuits for acts committed while the law is temporarily held unconstitutional *might* be allowed. Or might not. I
don't think something like this has ever been tried before.

And, like you, I think it's despicable. Also a very bad idea. The same
weapon could be used against things like the right to keep and bear arms.

Yes, SB-8 does only allow for civil cases but I *was* wondering more
about the generalized case and SB-8 was just one law that I'd seen such language in.

So you're saying the basic is that if X is done while the (criminal) law
was enjoined, then X was legal but if X was done while the law is active (either before or after the enjoined period) it's illegal, right? And
that it's almost like "Law against X is passed. Law against X is
repealed. Law against X is passed again." and if X is done either before
the law is passed (which I already knew) *OR* if it's done in that
in-between state, it was legal.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)