DOJ-OGR-00021118.jpg
696 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / appellate court filing
File Size:
696 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. It argues against the District Court's reliance on a floor statement by Senator Leahy regarding the PROTECT Act and the constitutionality of retroactive prosecution. The text contends that the court improperly applied the standards of 'Stogner v. California' (2003) to analyze Leahy's remarks, noting that Stogner was decided after the PROTECT Act was passed.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Patrick Leahy | Senator |
Quoted regarding his opposition to a retroactivity clause in the PROTECT Act legislation.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The lower court whose reasoning is being critiqued in this document.
|
|
| Congress |
Passed the PROTECT Act.
|
|
| House of Representatives |
Mentioned as having passed the original bill with retroactivity language.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR (Office of Government Relations).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Referenced in case citation Stogner v. California.
|
Relationships (1)
Floor statement cited in Congressional Record.
Key Quotes (3)
"I am pleased that the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021118.jpg
Quote #1
"That language, which would have revived the government’s authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred, is of doubtful constitutionality."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021118.jpg
Quote #2
"But Stogner is an unilluminating lens through which to analyze Sen. Leahy’s remark, as that case was not decided until after the PROTECT Act was passed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021118.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,655 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page71 of 113
Although the District Court was correct to recognize that Congress deleted the retroactivity provision purposefully, it failed to understand the reason. The District Court relied on a floor statement by Senator Leahy, in which the Senator offered his own reasons for opposing the retroactivity clause:
I am pleased that the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively. That language, which would have revived the government’s authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred, is of doubtful constitutionality.
149 Cong. Rec. S5147. Based on this, the District Court theorized that Congress wanted only to ensure that the extended statute of limitations would not unconstitutionally revive time-barred claims. See Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 610 (2003).
But Stogner is an unilluminating lens through which to analyze Sen. Leahy’s remark, as that case was not decided until after the PROTECT Act was passed. And though Stogner established, for Ex Post Facto Clause purposes, a clear division between statutes that revive time-barred prosecutions and those that merely extend the time to bring prosecutions not time-barred, this dichotomy would not have been apparent to Congress before Stogner. Indeed, the Stogner majority felt it necessary to clarify that its holding did “not prevent the State from extending time limits…for prosecutions not yet time barred,” 539 U.S. at 632, while the dissent contended that this dichotomy was untenable, see id. at 650
56
DOJ-OGR-00021118
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document