{"argument_date":"2003-03-31T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2003-03-31T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2002","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","paragraphs":["Mr. Najera stated that California law allows post-conviction challenges to deadlines.","Mr. Gornstein argued the statute does not violate Ex Post Facto rules.","Ms. Gaard cited new evidence about delayed reporting of abuse.","Chief Justice Rehnquist noted the case was submitted."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 41-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 36, lines 49-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 17-25"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 27-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 27-29"}]}],"caption":"Stogner v. California","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:31.243715Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"},{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:31.271517Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"Stogner argues the law punishes past acts. California says it only allows new prosecutions.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 41-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 36, lines 49-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 17-25"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2003-03-31T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2002","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/01-1757.html","primary_docket":"01-1757","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T16:21:27.027794Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["The Court must decide if a new law extending the time to prosecute sexual abuse violates the Constitution."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 41-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 36, lines 49-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 17-25"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 31, 2003."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 27-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 27-29"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["Stogner wants the Court to strike down the extended deadline.","California wants the Court to uphold the extended deadline."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 41-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 36, lines 49-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 17-25"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["Stogner argues the law punishes conduct that was legal when committed.","California argues the law does not fit any Ex Post Facto category."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 41-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 36, lines 49-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 17-25"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the same question applied to co-counsel.","Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 27-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 27-29"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This case defines the limits of state power to extend prosecution deadlines. It affects how legislatures handle delayed reporting of crimes. It balances individual rights against public safety needs."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 41-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 36, lines 49-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 17-25"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 27-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 27-29"}]}],"slug":"2002-01-1757-stogner-v-california","term":"2002","title":"Does California's extended statute of limitations violate the Ex Post Facto Clause?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 22, lines 41-23"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-11"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 36, lines 49-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1757.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 17-25"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}