Legislative act declaring a particular person guilty
"Writ of attainder" redirects here. Not to be confused with
Writ of attaint
.
A
bill of attainder
(also known as an
act of attainder
,
writ of attainder
, or
bill of penalties
) is an act of a
legislature
declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial. As with
attainder
resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's
civil rights
, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.
In the
history of England
, the word "
attainder
" refers to people who were declared "attainted", meaning that their civil rights were nullified: they could no longer own property or pass property to their family by will or testament. Attainted people would normally be punished by
judicial execution
, with the property left behind
escheated
to the Crown or lord rather than being inherited by family. The first use of a bill of attainder was in 1321 against
Hugh le Despenser, 1st Earl of Winchester
and his son
Hugh Despenser the Younger, Earl of Gloucester
, who were both attainted for supporting
King Edward II
. Bills of attainder passed in Parliament by
Henry VIII
on 29 January 1542 resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures.
The use of these bills by Parliament eventually fell into disfavour due to the potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly the right to
due process
, the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group, and the
separation of powers
, since a bill of attainder is necessarily a
judicial
matter. The last use of attainder was in 1798 against
Lord Edward FitzGerald
for leading the
Irish Rebellion of 1798
. The
House of Lords
later passed the
Pains and Penalties Bill 1820
, which attempted to attaint
Queen Caroline
, but it was not considered by the
House of Commons
. No bills of attainder have been passed since 1820 in the UK.
[1]
Attainder remained a legal consequence of convictions in courts of law, but this ceased to be a part of punishment in 1870.
[2]
American dissatisfaction with British attainder laws resulted in their being prohibited in the
United States Constitution
in 1789. Bills of attainder are forbidden to both the federal government and the states, reflecting the importance that the
Framers
attached to this issue. Every
state constitution
also expressly forbids bills of attainder.
[3]
[4]
The
U.S. Supreme Court
has invalidated laws under the Attainder Clause on five occasions.
[5]
Jurisdictions
[
edit
]
Australia
[
edit
]
Unlike the United States Constitution, the
Constitution of Australia
contains no specific provision prohibiting the
Commonwealth Parliament
from passing bills of attainder. However, the
High Court of Australia
has ruled that bills of attainder are unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for any body to wield judicial power other than a Chapter III court?that is, a body exercising power derived from Chapter III of the Constitution, the chapter providing for judicial power.
[6]
[7]
[8]
One of the core aspects of judicial power is the ability to make binding and authoritative decisions on questions of law, that is, issues relating to life, liberty or property.
[9]
[10]
The wielding of judicial power by the legislative or executive branch includes the direct wielding of power and the indirect wielding of judicial power.
[11]
The
state constitutions in Australia
contain few limitations on government power. Bills of attainder are considered permissible because there is no entrenched separation of powers at the state level.
[12]
[13]
However,
section 77 of the Constitution of Australia
permits state courts to be invested with Commonwealth jurisdiction, and any state law that renders a state court unable to function as a Chapter III court is unconstitutional.
[14]
The states cannot structure their legal systems to prevent them from being subject to the Australian Constitution.
[15]
An important distinction is that laws seeking to direct judicial power (e.g. must make orders)
[16]
are unconstitutional, but laws that concern mandatory sentencing,
[17]
[18]
rules of evidence,
[19]
non-punitive imprisonment,
[20]
or tests,
[21]
are constitutional.
State parliaments are, however, free to prohibit parole boards from granting parole to specific prisoners. For instance, sections 74AA and 74AB of the Corrections Act 1986 in
Victoria
significantly restrict the ability of the parole board to grant parole to
Julian Knight
or
Craig Minogue
. These have been upheld by the High Court of Australia and are distinguished from bills of attainder since the original sentence (life imprisonment) stands; the only change is the administration of parole.
[22]
[23]
Canada
[
edit
]
In two cases of attempts to pass bills (in 1984 for
Clifford Olson
and in 1995 for
Karla Homolka
) to inflict a judicial penalty on a specific person, the speakers of the
House
and
Senate
, respectively, have ruled that Canadian
parliamentary practice
does not permit bills of attainder or bills of pains and penalties.
[24]
[25]
United Kingdom
[
edit
]
English law
[
edit
]
The word "
attainder
" is part of English
common law
.
[a]
Under English law, a criminal condemned for a serious crime, whether
treason
or
felony
(but not
misdemeanour
, which referred to less serious crimes), could be declared "attainted", meaning that his civil rights were nullified: he could no longer own property or pass property to his family by will or testament. His property could consequently revert to
the Crown
or to the
mesne lord
. Any
peerage
titles would also revert to the Crown. The convicted person would normally be punished by
judicial execution
– when a person committed a capital crime and was put to death for it, the property left behind
escheated
to the Crown or lord rather than being inherited by family. Attainder functioned more or less as the revocation of the feudal chain of privilege and all rights and properties thus granted.
Due to
mandatory sentencing
, the due process of the courts provided limited flexibility to deal with the various circumstances of offenders. The property of criminals caught alive and put to death because of a guilty plea or jury conviction on a not guilty plea could be forfeited, as could the property of those who escaped justice and were outlawed; but the property of offenders who died before trial, except those killed during the commission of crimes (who fell foul of the law relating to
felo de se
), could not be forfeited, nor could the property of offenders who refused to plead and who were tortured to death through
peine forte et dure
.
On the other hand, when a legal conviction did take place, confiscation and "corruption of blood" sometimes appeared unduly harsh for the surviving family. In some cases (at least regarding the peerage) the Crown would eventually re-grant the convicted peer's lands and titles to his heir. It was also possible, as political fortunes turned, for a bill of attainder to be reversed. This sometimes occurred long after the convicted person was executed.
Unlike the mandatory sentences of the courts, acts of Parliament provided considerable latitude in suiting the punishment to the particular conditions of the offender's family. Parliament could also impose non-capital punishments without involving courts; such bills are called
bills of pains and penalties
.
Bills of attainder were sometimes criticised as a convenient way for the
king
to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial ? and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all. It was however relevant to the custom of the Middle Ages, where all lands and titles were granted by a king in his role as the "
fount of honour
". Anything granted by the king's wish could be taken away by him. This weakened over time as personal rights became legally established.
The first use of a bill of attainder was in 1321 against
Hugh le Despenser, 1st Earl of Winchester
and his son
Hugh Despenser the Younger, Earl of Gloucester
. They were both attainted for supporting
King Edward II
during his struggle with the
queen
and
barons
.
In England, those executed subject to attainders include
George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence
(1478);
Thomas Cromwell
(1540);
Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury
(1540);
Catherine Howard
(1542);
Thomas, Lord Seymour
(1549);
Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford
(1641); Archbishop
William Laud
of
Canterbury
(1645); and
James Scott, Duke of Monmouth
. In the 1541 case of Catherine Howard, King
Henry VIII
was the first monarch to delegate
royal assent
, to avoid having to assent personally to the execution of his wife.
After defeating
Richard III
and replacing him on the throne of England following the
Battle of Bosworth Field
,
Henry VII
had Parliament pass a bill of attainder against his predecessor.
[27]
It is noteworthy that this bill made no mention of the
Princes in the Tower
, although it does declare him guilty of "shedding of Infants blood".
[28]
Although deceased by the time of the
Restoration
, the
regicides
John Bradshaw
,
Oliver Cromwell
,
Henry Ireton
, and
Thomas Pride
were served with a bill of attainder on 15 May 1660 backdated to 1 January 1649 (
NS
). After the committee stages, the bill passed both the
Houses of Lords
and
Commons
and was engrossed on 4 December 1660. This was followed with a resolution that passed both Houses on the same day:
[29]
[30]
[31]
That the Carcases of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton, John Bradshaw, and Thomas Pride, whether buried in Westminster Abbey, or elsewhere, be, with all Expedition, taken up, and drawn upon a Hurdle to Tiburne, and there hanged up in their Coffins for some time; and after that buried under the said Gallows: And that James Norfolke Esquire, Serjeant at Arms attending the House of Commons, do take care that this Order be put in effectual Execution.
In 1685, when the
Duke of Monmouth
landed in
West England
and started
a rebellion
in an effort to overthrow his uncle, the recently enthroned
James II
, Parliament passed a bill of attainder against him. After the
Battle of Sedgemoor
, this made it possible for King James to have the captured Monmouth put summarily to death. Though legal, this was regarded by many as an arbitrary and ruthless act.
In 1753, the Jacobite leader
Archibald Cameron of Lochiel
was summarily put to death on the basis of a seven-year-old bill of attainder, rather than being put on trial for his recent subversive activities in Scotland. This aroused some protests in British public opinion at the time, including from people with no Jacobite sympathies.
The last use of attainder was in 1798 against
Lord Edward FitzGerald
for leading the
Irish Rebellion of 1798
.
The Great Act of Attainder
[
edit
]
In 1688, King
James II of England
(VII of Scotland), driven off by the ascent of
William III
and
Mary II
in the
Glorious Revolution
, came to Ireland with the sole purpose of reclaiming his throne. After his arrival, the
Parliament of Ireland
assembled a list of names in 1689 of those reported to have been disloyal to him, eventually tallying between two and three thousand, in a bill of attainder. Those on the list were to report to Dublin for sentencing. One man,
Lord Mountjoy
, was in the
Bastille
at the time and was told by the Irish Parliament that he must break out of his cell and make it back to Ireland for his punishment, or face the grisly process of being
drawn and quartered
.
[32]
The parliament became known in the 1800s as the "
Patriot Parliament
".
Later defenders of the Patriot Parliament pointed out that the ensuing "
Williamite Settlement forfeitures
" of the 1690s named an even larger number of
Jacobite
suspects, most of whom had been attainted by 1699.
[33]
Private bills
[
edit
]
This section is about legislation that affects a specific person. For legislation proposed by a single MP, see
Private member's bill
.
In the
Westminster system
(and especially in the United Kingdom), a similar concept is covered by the term "private bill" (a bill which upon passage becomes a private Act). Note however that "private bill" is a general term referring to a proposal for legislation applying to a specific person; it is only a bill of attainder if it punishes them; private bills have been used in some Commonwealth countries to effect divorce.
[34]
Other traditional uses of private bills include
chartering corporations
, changing the charters of existing corporations, granting monopolies, approving of public infrastructure and seizure of property for those, as well as enclosure of commons and similar redistributions of property. Those types of private bills operate to take away private property and rights from certain individuals, but are usually not called "bill of pains and penalties". Unlike the latter, Acts appropriating property with compensation are constitutionally uncontroversial as a form of
compulsory purchase
.
The last United Kingdom bill called a "Pains and Penalties Bill" was the
Pains and Penalties Bill 1820
and was passed by the House of Lords in 1820, but not considered by the House of Commons; it sought to divorce
Queen Caroline
from
King George IV
and adjust her titles and property accordingly, on grounds of her alleged adultery, as did many private bills dealing with divorces of private persons.
No bills of attainder have been passed since 1820 in the UK.
[35]
Attainder as such remained a legal consequence of convictions in courts of law, but this ceased to be a part of punishment in 1870.
[2]
World War II
[
edit
]
Previously secret British
War Cabinet
papers released on 1 January 2006 have shown that, as early as December 1942, the War Cabinet had discussed their policy for the punishment of the leading
Axis
officials if captured.
British Prime Minister
Winston Churchill
had then advocated a policy of
summary execution
with the use of an act of attainder to circumvent legal obstacles. He was dissuaded by
Richard Law
, a junior minister at the Foreign Office, who pointed out that the
United States
and the
Soviet Union
still favoured trials.
[36]
[37]
United States
[
edit
]
Colonial era
[
edit
]
Bills of attainder were used throughout the 18th century in England, and were applied to
British colonies
as well. However, at least one American state,
New York
, used a 1779 bill of attainder to confiscate the property of
British loyalists
(called Tories) as both a penalty for their political sympathies and means of funding the rebellion. American dissatisfaction with British attainder laws resulted in their being prohibited in the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1787.
Constitutional bans
[
edit
]
The
United States Constitution
forbids legislative bills of attainder: in federal law under
Article I, Section 9
, Clause 3 ("No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"), and in state law under
Article I, Section 10
. The fact that they were banned even under state law reflects the importance that the
Framers
attached to this issue.
Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforce the
separation of powers
by forbidding the legislature to perform
judicial
or executive functions, as a bill of attainder necessarily does. Second, they embody the concept of
due process
, which is reinforced by the
Fifth Amendment
to the Constitution.
Every
state constitution
also expressly forbids bills of attainder.
[4]
[38]
For example,
Wisconsin's constitution
Article I, Section 12 reads:
No bill of attainder,
ex post facto law
, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.
In contrast, the
Texas Constitution
omits the clause that applies to heirs.
[39]
It is unclear whether a law that called for heirs to be deprived of their estate would be constitutional in Texas.
[40]
Supreme Court cases
[
edit
]
The
U.S. Supreme Court
has invalidated laws under the Attainder Clause on five occasions.
[41]
Two of the
United States Supreme Court
's first decisions on the meaning of the bill of attainder clause came after the
American Civil War
. In
Ex parte Garland
, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), the court struck down a federal law requiring attorneys practising in federal court to swear that they had not supported the rebellion. In
Cummings v. Missouri
, 71 U.S. 277 (1867), the
Missouri
Constitution required anyone seeking a professional's license from the state to swear they had not supported the rebellion. The Supreme Court overturned the law and the constitutional provision, arguing that the people already admitted to practice were subject to penalty without judicial trial.
[42]
The lack of judicial trial was the critical affront to the Constitution, the Court said.
[43]
Two decades later, however, the Court upheld similar laws. In
Hawker v. New York
, 170 U.S. 189 (1898), a state law barred convicted felons from practising medicine. In
Dent v. West Virginia
, 129 U.S. 114 (1889), a
West Virginia
state law imposed a new requirement that practising physicians had to have graduated from a licensed medical school or they would be forced to surrender their license. The Court upheld both laws because, it said, the laws were narrowly tailored to focus on an individual's qualifications to practice medicine.
[44]
That was not true in
Garland
or
Cummings
.
[44]
[45]
The Court changed its "bill of attainder test" in 1946. In
United States v. Lovett
, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), the Court confronted a federal law that named three people as subversive and excluded them from federal employment. Previously, the Court had held that lack of judicial trial and the narrow way in which the law rationally achieved its goals were the only tests of a bill of attainder. But the
Lovett
Court said that a bill of attainder 1) specifically identified the people to be punished; 2) imposed punishment; and 3) did so without benefit of judicial trial.
[46]
[47]
As all three prongs of the bill of attainder test were met in
Lovett
, the court held that a Congressional statute that bars particular individuals from government employment qualifies as punishment prohibited by the bill of attainder clause.
The
Taft?Hartley Act
(enacted in 1947) sought to ban
political strikes
by
Communist
-dominated
labour unions
by requiring all elected labour leaders to take an oath that they were not and had never been members of the
Communist Party USA
, and that they did not advocate violent overthrow of the U.S. government. It also made it a crime for members of the Communist Party to serve on executive boards of labour unions. In
American Communications Association v. Douds
, 339 U.S. 382 (1950), the Supreme Court had said that the requirement for the oath was not a bill of attainder because: 1) anyone could avoid punishment by disavowing the Communist Party, and 2) it focused on a future act (overthrow of the government) and not a past one.
[48]
Reflecting current fears, the Court commented in
Douds
on approving the specific focus on Communists by noting what a threat communism was.
[49]
The Court had added an "escape clause" test to determining whether a law was a bill of attainder.
[48]
In
United States v. Brown
, 381 U.S. 437 (1965), the Court invalidated the section of the statute that criminalized a former communist serving on a union's executive board. Clearly, the Act had focused on past behaviour and had specified a specific class of people to be punished.
[50]
Many legal scholars assumed that the
Brown
case effectively, if not explicitly, overruled
Douds
.
[51]
The Court did not apply the punishment prong of the
Douds
test, leaving legal scholars confused as to whether the Court still intended it to apply.
[52]
The Supreme Court emphasized the narrowness and rationality of bills of attainder in
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services
, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). During the
Watergate scandal
, in 1974 Congress passed the
Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act
, which required the
General Services Administration
to confiscate former President
Richard Nixon
's presidential papers to prevent their destruction, screen out those which contained national security and other issues which might prevent their publication, and release the remainder of the papers to the public as fast as possible.
[53]
The Supreme Court upheld the law in
Nixon
, arguing that specificity alone did not invalidate the act because the President constituted a "class of one".
[54]
Thus, specificity was constitutional if it was rationally related to the class identified.
[54]
The Court modified its punishment test, concluding that only those laws which historically offended the bill of attainder clause were invalid.
[55]
The Court also found it significant that Nixon was compensated for the loss of his papers, which alleviated the punishment.
[56]
The Court modified the punishment prong by holding that punishment could survive scrutiny if it was rationally related to other, nonpunitive goals.
[56]
Finally, the Court concluded that the legislation must not be intended to punish; legislation enacted for otherwise legitimate purposes could be saved so long as punishment was a side-effect rather than the main purpose of the law.
[57]
Lower court cases
[
edit
]
A number of cases which raised the bill of attainder issue did not reach or have not reached the Supreme Court, but were considered by lower courts.
In 1990, in the wake of the
Exxon Valdez oil spill
, Congress enacted the
Oil Pollution Act
to consolidate various oil spill and oil pollution statutes into a single unified law, and to provide for a statutory regime for handling oil spill cleanup. This law was challenged as a bill of attainder by the shipping division of
ExxonMobil
.
[58]
[59]
In 2003, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
struck down the
Elizabeth Morgan Act
as a bill of attainder.
[60]
After the
United States House of Representatives
passed a resolution in late 2009 barring the community organising group
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
(ACORN) from receiving federal funding, the group sued the U.S. government.
[61]
Another, broader bill, the Defund ACORN Act, was enacted by Congress later that year. In March 2010, a
federal district court
declared the funding ban an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
[62]
On 13 August 2010, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed and remanded on the grounds that only 10 percent of ACORN's funding was federal and that did not constitute "punishment".
[63]
[64]
Possible cases
[
edit
]
There is argument over whether the
Palm Sunday Compromise
in the
Terri Schiavo case
was a bill of attainder.
[65]
[66]
[67]
Some analysts considered a proposed Congressional bill to confiscate 90 percent of the bonus money paid to executives at federally rescued investment bank
American International Group
a bill of attainder, although disagreement exists on the issue. The bill was not passed by Congress.
[68]
[69]
In 2009, the city of
Portland, Oregon
's attempt to prosecute more severely those on a "secret list" of 350 individuals deemed by police to have committed "liveability crimes" in certain neighbourhoods was challenged as an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
[70]
[71]
In 2011, the House voted to defund
Planned Parenthood
. Democratic Representative
Jerry Nadler
called that vote a bill of attainder, saying it was unconstitutional as such because the legislation was targeting a specific group.
[72]
In January 2017, the House reinstated the
Holman Rule
, a procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reduce the pay of an individual federal worker down to $1.
[73]
It was once again removed at the beginning of the
116th United States Congress
in January 2019, after Democrats had taken control of the chamber.
[74]
On November 5, 2019, the
U.S. Supreme Court
heard oral arguments in
Allen v. Cooper
.
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of North Carolina and struck down the
Copyright Remedy Clarification Act
, which Congress passed in 1989 to attempt to curb such infringements of copyright by states, in
Allen v. Cooper
.
[79]
[80]
[81]
After the ruling
Nautilus Productions
, the plaintiff in
Allen v. Cooper
, filed a motion for reconsideration in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
[82]
On August 18, 2021, Judge
Terrence Boyle
granted the motion for reconsideration which North Carolina promptly appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
[83]
The 4th Circuit denied the state's motion on October 14, 2022.
[84]
Nautilus then filed their second amended complaint on February 8, 2023, alleging 5th and 14th Amendment violations of Nautilus' constitutional rights, additional copyright violations, and claiming that North Carolina's "
Blackbeard's Law
," N.C. Gen Stat §121-25(b),
[85]
represents a Bill of Attainder.
[86]
[87]
Eight years after the passage of Blackbeard's Law, on June 30, 2023, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper signed a bill repealing the law.
[88]
See also
[
edit
]
- Ex post facto law
, which retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions committed prior to its enactment
- Lettres de cachet
, used by French kings to have people imprisoned without trial
- Spot zoning
, the arbitrary application or removal of zoning restrictions from a specific parcel of land
Notes
[
edit
]
- ^
The word "attainder" does not, in fact, derive from a Latin expression meaning "tainted", but from a French expression meaning "to attain", in the sense of condemn.
[26]
References
[
edit
]
- ^
Zechariah Chafee, Jr.,
Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 at 97
(Univ. of Kans. Press, 1956)
- ^
a
b
David Plant.
"British Civil Wars, Commonwealth & Protectorate 1638?1660: Impeachment & Attainder"
.
British Civil Wars Project
. Archived from
the original
on 4 April 2004
. Retrieved
28 July
2016
.
- ^
"Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws"
.
Justia Law
. Retrieved
25 May
2020
.
- ^
a
b
Kenneth R. Thomas.
"Bills of Attainder: The Constitutional Implications of Congress Legislating Narrowly"
(PDF)
.
fas.org
. Retrieved
12 April
2024
.
- ^
"Nonattainder as a Liberty Interest",
Wisconsin Law Review
, 2010, p. 1229.
- ^
New South Wales v Commonwealth
[1915] HCA 17
,
(1915) 20 CLR 54
,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth
[1951] HCA 5
,
(1951) 83 CLR 1
,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia
[1956] HCA 10
, (1956) 94
CLR
254,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead
[1909] HCA 36
,
(1909) 8 CLR 330
,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
Polyukhovich v Commonwealth
(War Crimes Act case)
[1991] HCA 32
, (1991) 172
CLR
501,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister of Immigration
[1992] HCA 64
, (1992) 176
CLR
1,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers Federation of New South Wales v Minister of Industrial Relations
(1986) 7
NSWLR
372,
Court of Appeal
(NSW, Australia).
- ^
City of Collingwood v Victoria [No2]
[1994] VicRp 46
, [1994] 1
VR
652,
Supreme Court
(Vic, Australia).
- ^
Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
[1996] HCA 24
, (1996) 189
CLR
51,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW
[2010] HCA 1
, (2010) 239
CLR
531,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
International Finance Trust Company Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission (Criminal Assets Recovery case)
[2009] HCA 49
, (2009) 240
CLR
319,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
Wynbyne v Marshall
[1997] NTSC 120
, (1997) 99
A Crim R
1,
Supreme Court
(NT, Australia).
- ^
R v Moffatt
[1998] 2
VR
229,
Court of Appeal
(Vic, Australia).
- ^
Nicholas v The Queen
[1998] HCA 9
, (1998) 193
CLR
173,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
Fardon v Attorney-General (QLD)
[1998] HCA 46
, (2004) 223
CLR
575,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd
[2013] HCA 7
, (2013) 252
CLR
38,
High Court
(Australia).
- ^
Julian Knight v The State of Victoria
[2017] HCA 29
,
High Court
(Australia)
- ^
Craig William John Minogue v The State of Victoria
[2019] HCA 31
,
High Court
(Australia)
- ^
Canada: 32nd Parliament, 2nd Session, 14 May 1984
"Debates of the House of Commons: "An Act respecting the execution of Clifford Robert Olson"
. Hansard. p. 3683
. Retrieved
23 November
2015
.
- ^
Canada: 35th Parliament, 1st Session, 28 November 1995
"Debates of the Senate: "Bill Concerning Karla Homolka"
. Hansard. p. 236
. Retrieved
23 November
2014
.
- ^
"Home : Oxford English Dictionary"
.
- ^
"Richard III: The truth may yet be discovered"
.
The Independent
. Retrieved
13 October
2018
.
- ^
Kendall, Paul Murray
(1956).
Richard the Third
.
W. W. Norton
.
ISBN
0-393-00785-5
.
- ^
"House of Commons Journal Volume 8: 15 May 1660"
.
British History Online
. Retrieved
28 July
2016
.
- ^
"House of Commons Journal Volume 8: 4 December 1660"
.
British History Online
. Retrieved
28 July
2016
.
- ^
"Index: A?J"
.
Journal of the House of Commons
. Volume 8
. Retrieved
28 July
2016
– via British History Online.
- ^
Macaulay (1855).
History of England from the Accession of James the Second
. London. pp. 216?220.
{{
cite book
}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link
)
- ^
Davis, T. O. (1843).
The Irish Parliament of James II
.
- ^
Millar, Paul; Goldenberg, Sheldon (1998). "Explaining Child Custody Determinations in Canada".
Canadian Journal of Law and Society
.
13
(1): 209?225.
doi
:
10.1017/S0829320100005792
.
S2CID
147117606
.
- ^
Chafee, Zechariah Jr. (1956).
Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 at 97
. University of Kansas Press.
- ^
Crossland, John (1 January 2006).
"Churchill: execute Hitler without trial"
.
The Sunday Times
. Retrieved
12 February
2021
.
- ^
Holocaust Education and Archive Research Team.
"The 1st Nuremberg Trial"
.
Holocaust Research Project
.
- ^
"Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws"
.
Justia Law
. Retrieved
25 May
2020
.
- ^
Texas Constitution of 1876, Article 1 (entitled
Bill of Rights
); Section 16, entitled
Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws: Impairing Obligation of Contracts
: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made".
- ^
Reynolds, Jacob (2005).
"The Rule of Law and the Origins of the Bill of Attainder Clause"
.
St. Thomas Law Review
.
18
(1): 177.
- ^
"Nonattainder as a Liberty Interest".
Wisconsin Law Review
: 1229. 2010.
- ^
Ely, John H.
On Constitutional Ground
. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996, p. 98.
- ^
Nabers, Deak.
Victory of Law: The Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil War, and American Literature, 1852?1867
. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006, p. 30.
- ^
a
b
Johnson, Theodore.
The Second Amendment Controversy – Explained.
2d ed. Indianapolis: iUniverse, 2002, p. 334.
- ^
"Beyond Process: A Substantive Rationale for the Bill of Attainder Clause".
Virginia Law Review
. 70:475 (April 1984), pp. 481-483.
- ^
Cushman, Robert Fairchild and
Koniak, Susan P.
Cases in Civil Liberties
. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1994, p. 4.
- ^
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution
. Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 2005, p. 155.
- ^
a
b
Welsh, Jane. "The Bill of Attainder Clause: An Unqualified Guarantee of Process".
Brooklyn Law Review
. 50:77 (Fall 1983), p. 97.
- ^
Wiecek, William M.
History of the Supreme Court of the United States: The Birth of the Modern Constitution: The United States Supreme Court, 1941?1953
. New York: Macmillan, 2006, p. 548.
- ^
"Beyond Process: A Substantive Rationale for the Bill of Attainder Clause",
Virginia Law Review
, April 1984, p. 485.
- ^
Rabinowitz, Victor.
Unrepentant Leftist: A Lawyer's Memoir
. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1996, p. 56.
- ^
Welsh, "The Bill of Attainder Clause: An Unqualified Guarantee of Process",
Brooklyn Law Review
, Fall 1983, p. 98.
- ^
Ripley, Anthony. "U.S. Judge Rules Nixon Documents Belong to Nation",
The New York Times
, 1 February 1975.
- ^
a
b
Stark, Jack.
Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution
. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2002, pp. 79?80.
- ^
Stark,
Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution
, 2002, p. 74.
- ^
a
b
Stark,
Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution
, 2002, p. 75.
- ^
Stark,
Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution
, 2002, p. 30.
- ^
SeaRiver Maritime Fin. Holdings, Inc. v. Pena
, 952 F.Supp. 9, D.D.C. 199.
- ^
Carringan, Alison C. "The Bill of Attainder Clause: A New Weapon to Challenge the Oil Pollution Act of 1990",
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review
28:119 (2000).
- ^
Doris R. Foretich, et al. v. United States
, 351 F.3d 1198 (D.C.App. 2003); Leonning, Carol D. "Appeals Court Rules Against Morgan Law",
Washington Post
17 December 2003.
- ^
Fahim, Kareem (12 November 2009).
"Acorn Sues Over Funding Vote in House"
.
The New York Times
. Retrieved
14 November
2010
.
- ^
Farrell, Michael B. "Funding Gone, Scandal-Plagued ACORN to Disband".
The Christian Science Monitor
, 23 March 2010.
- ^
"Federal Court Rules Against Acorn".
Associated Press
: 14 August 2010.
- ^
"ACORN v. United States"
.
Harvard Law Review
. 20 January 2011
. Retrieved
23 July
2015
.
- ^
Calabresi, Steven G. "The Terri Schiavo Case: In Defense of the Special Law Enacted by Congress and President Bush",
Northwestern University Law Review
100:1 (2006).
- ^
McGough, Michael. "Terri's Law: Is It Constitutional?"
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
, 22 March 2005.
- ^
Marks, Jr., Thomas C. "Terri Schiavo and the Law",
Albany Law Review
67:843 (2004).
- ^
Jones, Ashby. "Would an AIG-Bonus Tax Pass Constitutional Muster? (A Tribe Calls 'Yes!')"
Wall Street Journal
, 18 March 2009.
- ^
Clarke, Connor (16 March 2009). "No Bill of Attainder... Shall Be Passed".
The Atlantic
.
- ^
"Secret List on Trial"
.
Portland Mercury
.
- ^
Green, Aimee (8 April 2009).
"Judge declines to rule on constitutionality of Portland Police Bureau's secret list"
.
The Oregonian/OregonLive
. Retrieved
21 August
2020
.
- ^
Nocera, David Nather and Kate (18 February 2011).
"House votes to defund Planned Parenthood"
.
Politico
. Retrieved
23 July
2015
.
- ^
"The Holman Rule Once Allowed Congress to Purge Leftists From Government Agencies – Now It's Back"
.
- ^
Bur, Jessie (3 January 2019).
"House passes package dismantling fed-targeting rule"
.
Federal Times
. Retrieved
4 January
2019
.
- ^
Murphy, Brian (5 November 2019).
"How Blackbeard's ship and a diver with an 'iron hand' ended up at the Supreme Court"
. Charlotte Observer
. Retrieved
16 November
2019
.
- ^
Wolf, Richard (5 November 2019).
"Aarrr, matey! Supreme Court justices frown on state's public display of pirate ship's salvage operation"
.
USA Today
. Retrieved
27 December
2019
.
- ^
Livni, Ephrat (5 November 2019).
"A Supreme Court piracy case involving Blackbeard proves truth is stranger than fiction"
. Quartz
. Retrieved
27 December
2019
.
- ^
Woolverton, Paul (5 November 2019).
"Supreme Court justices skeptical in Blackbeard pirate ship case from Fayetteville"
. Fayetteville Observer
. Retrieved
27 December
2019
.
- ^
"N.C. Gen Stat §121-25"
(PDF)
.
NCleg.gov
. North Carolina
. Retrieved
19 June
2020
.
- ^
Adler, Adam (29 March 2020).
"Blackbeard Just Broke Copyright Law, and Now States Are the Pirates"
. The Escapist
. Retrieved
19 June
2020
.
- ^
Allen v. Cooper
,
Text
.
- ^
McKlveen, Gina (28 October 2022).
"A North Carolina Filmmaker Continues to Challenge State Sovereign Immunity"
. Institute of Art & Law
. Retrieved
24 March
2023
.
- ^
"Reconsideration Granted"
(PDF)
.
Nautilus Productions
. Retrieved
5 April
2023
.
- ^
"4th Circuit Recon"
(PDF)
.
Nautilus Productions
. Retrieved
5 April
2023
.
- ^
"§ 121-25. License to conduct exploration, recovery or salvage operations"
(PDF)
.
ncleg.gov
. North Carolina
. Retrieved
25 May
2023
.
- ^
"PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT"
(PDF)
.
IPWatchdog
. Retrieved
24 March
2023
.
- ^
Barnes, Greg (14 February 2023).
"Fayetteville's Blackbeard shipwreck filmmaker fires back in new court case"
. CityView
. Retrieved
24 March
2023
.
- ^
"AN ACT TO MAKE VARIOUS CHANGES TO THE STATUTES GOVERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DEPARTMENT"
(PDF)
.
ncleg.gov
. North Carolina
. Retrieved
21 July
2023
.
External links
[
edit
]
British tradition
[
edit
]
American tradition
[
edit
]