This ruling has been questioned many times and there are numerous legal scholars who believe the court was in error. One such article is from the California Law Review of May 1927, where on page 2 it states…

“The decision in Calder v. Bull in 1798 limited their meaning (Ex Post Facto Laws) to prohibitions against retroactive criminal legislation. The historical accuracy of this holding has since been questioned. Two writers/ after an extensive examination of the records of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and of the state ratifying con­ventions, have concluded that the phrase ex post facto was not used in the technical sense of a prohibition against criminal retroactive laws/ but was intended to supplement the clause prohibiting the states from impairing the obligation of contracts, as a prohibition against all retroactive legislation. The real mischief aimed at, it is pointed out, was retroactive civil legislation.”

And there you have it in the last sentence. The wording in the constitution was more about civil law, not criminal law, being retroactively applied, which is exactly what is happening with SORNA laws almost every day.

There will come a day when a case challenging the ruling of Calder vs Bull will make it to the Supreme Court. Let’s hope whoever brings it has deep pockets, great lawyers, and a Supreme Court that isn’t so worried about precedence they won’t overturn it. And let’s hope it’s in the not to distance future.

textbook punishment

“Banishment is a type of punishment that is given as a result of being convicted of a crime. Banishment is defined as a punishment that requires the convicted person to leave the city, county, state, or country in which they are charged. Sometimes banishment is also called exile or deportation .”
…
“Despite being rooted in ancient cultures, banishment is still a form of legal punishment today and is practiced in modern society by countries around the globe. ”

Banishment in Ancient Law
Banishment and exile are often viewed as extreme measures. However ancient law often considered banishment or exile a gracious sentence. It allows the convicted person to avoid legal repercussions for their actions and to continue to live their lives in other societies.

If only that were true, but they did not have internet database systems back then….not gracious in this case, the current laws (relying on worldwide distribution of the offense on the internet) requires a registrant to provide evidence against him/her self wherever they live in the US and extremely difficult to leave the US.

The problem is not so much how WE feel but how the judges feel. We may know it is punitive because we feel it all the time. Judges have largely ignored how we feel. Most simply don’t give a rip about that. Most have absorbed the victimcentric narrative and the “public safety” kool-aid.

I don’t have high hopes for the 7th Circuit in light of some other rulings I’ve seen from them over the years.

Unfortunately, you do. For things to change it will require a judicial determination.
While you (and all of us) may know in your mind that this is definitely punishment, until a court makes that determination our freedom will remain in our minds.