Epstein Secrets

§§ 9-10, prohibit legislatures from singling out disfavored persons and meting out summary punishment for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965). The Due Process Clause also protects the interests in fair notice and repo

n). It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landqraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in ou

ng violation of a specified statutory criminal act under §2255, the defendant is held liable for the statutory imposed minimum. As explained by the Landqraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,2 2 In Landaraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply

nt for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

ecified statutory criminal act under §2255 and personal injury, the defendant is held liable for the statutory imposed minimum. As explained by the Landqraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,3 When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the events in suit, the court's first task is to determine

nt for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

ecified statutory criminal act under §2255 and personal injury, the defendant is held liable for the statutory Imposed minimum. As explained by the Landqraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,3 When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the events In suit, the court's first task is to determine