This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Petitioner asks the Court to require California to be bound by its longstanding statutes and decrees.
According to Ms. Gaard, respondent argues that the extended statute of limitations is retroactive but does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or the Due Process Clause.
According to United States (amicus curiae), the United States filed an amicus brief supporting the Respondent.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice, the Court asked whether the statute of limitations violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
According to Justice, the Court also asked whether the Frazer case overruled California’s doctrine on the statute of limitations.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Petitioner, petitioner seeks to bind the State of California to its historical statutes and decrees.
According to Roberto Najera (Petitioner), petitioner asks the Court to hold the State to the bargain defined by its statute of limitations.
Respondent Position
According to Ms. Gaard, respondent contends that the extended statute of limitations is retroactive but does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or the Due Process Clause.
United States (Amicus) Position
According to United States (amicus curiae), the United States, as amicus curiae, argues that California’s statute of limitations does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it does not fall within any of the four Calder categories.
What happened at oral argument
Ms. Janet Gaard argued on behalf of the Respondent.
According to United States (amicus curiae), irving L. Gornstein argued on behalf of the United States as amicus supporting the Respondent.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- e7d01029a312a061e264-r1-b513751abf717709.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.