Summary
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the Court should revisit how it understands the Ex Post Facto Clauses, based on a concept from 1798. The Court ruled on a case regarding court-ordered restitution, confirming that it is considered a criminal punishment under current law. Justice Thomas, supported by Justice Neil Gorsuch, expressed a desire to return to the original interpretation from the 1798 Calder v. Bull case in future cases.
Key Facts
- Clarence Thomas called for a return to an 18th-century understanding of Ex Post Facto Clauses.
- The Supreme Court ruled that restitution is a criminal punishment under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.
- The Act requires people convicted of certain federal crimes to compensate victims financially.
- The petitioner argued that the restitution order violated the Ex Post Facto Clause since it was given retroactively.
- The Ex Post Facto Clause prevents laws from being applied to actions that occurred before the law was in place.
- Calder v. Bull from 1798 set a precedent by allowing some retroactive laws in civil cases but not in criminal ones.
- Justice Thomas criticized the current, complex method the Court uses to define criminal punishment.
- The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in this restitution case.
