No. 01-1757 Stogner v. California - FindLaw: Supreme Court Center

8
protection against retroactive changes in the law. Accordingly,
the Ex Post Facto Clause, and not the more generalized
notion of substantive due process, must be the guide
for assessing petitioner’s claim. See Albright v. Oliver, 510
U.S. 266 (1994). Independent scrutiny of that claim under
the Due Process Clause is foreclosed.
Even if petitioner’s claim were separately analyzed
under this Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence,
it would fail. The expiration of a statute of limitations
confers no fundamental right or liberty interest; it is
simply a public policy about the privilege to litigate. An
inviolate right to repose after the statute of limitations has
expired, such that a previously-existing cause of action
cannot be revived, is not deeply imbedded in our Nation’s
history and tradition. And although a change in the
statute of limitations may affect settled expectations, it is
not so implicit in the concept of ordered liberty that
neither liberty nor justice would exist if it were permitted.
Hence, it does not deny a defendant due process of law
unless there is not a rational basis for the law.
California Penal Code section 803(g) was enacted in
response to two significant concerns identified by the
California Legislature: the need to convict and punish
those who sexually abuse children; and the need to prevent
the victimization of more children. Section 803(g),
which extends the statute of limitations in specified
circumstances, is narrowly drawn to effectuate the significant
purposes it was designed to serve. The statute, on its
face, does not violate the Due Process Clause.
Instead, a defendant may find protection in the
procedural component of the Due Process Clause. If he
believes he has been prejudiced by a change in the statute