Presumption Against Retroactivity
Definition
Courts presume that statutes apply only prospectively — to conduct occurring after the statute’s enactment — unless Congress has clearly expressed an intent for retroactive application. When a new statute would attach new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment, a clear congressional statement is required.
Elements / Two-Step Framework
The Landgraf framework (Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 1994):
- Step One: Did Congress expressly prescribe the statute’s proper reach? If Congress clearly intends retroactivity, apply the statute retroactively.
- Step Two: If Congress is silent, does applying the statute to the case at hand have a “retroactive effect” — i.e., does it:
- Impair rights a party possessed when they acted;
- Increase a party’s liability for past conduct; or
- Impose new duties with respect to completed transactions?
If yes, the presumption against retroactivity applies and the statute does not reach the conduct.
Key Cases
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994): Civil Rights Act of 1991 provisions authorizing compensatory and punitive damages did not apply to conduct predating the Act’s enactment. New civil liability for past conduct requires a clear statement.
- Lindh v. Murphy (1997): AEDPA’s new habeas corpus standards did not apply retroactively to pending cases, applying Landgraf to procedural rules with retroactive effect.
- Bradley v. School Board of Richmond: Earlier, more permissive rule applied new law to pending cases; Landgraf largely superseded this approach.
Policy / Rationale
- Reliance and notice: parties should be able to order their affairs in conformity with the law as it existed when they acted.
- Settled expectations: retroactive laws upset reasonable expectations formed at the time of the conduct.
- Separation of powers: courts should not impute retroactive intent without a clear congressional signal.
- The bar on ex post facto laws in criminal cases reflects the same underlying concern at constitutional level.