October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1757
Does California's extended statute of limitations violate the Ex Post Facto Clause?
Stogner argues the law punishes past acts. California says it only allows new prosecutions.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
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.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 27-29
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Court must decide if a new law extending the time to prosecute sexual abuse violates the Constitution.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-25
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 31, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 27-29
What each side wants
Stogner wants the Court to strike down the extended deadline.
California wants the Court to uphold the extended deadline.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-25
What each side says
Stogner argues the law punishes conduct that was legal when committed.
California argues the law does not fit any Ex Post Facto category.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-25
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the same question applied to co-counsel.
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 27-29
Why it matters
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-25
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 27-29
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 41-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-25
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.