SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC., ET AL.

v.

HENSON

Citator

Cited By

• Smith v. DOE, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003)
  …t, in disagreement with the District Court, it held the effects of the Act were punitive despite the legislature’s intent. In consequence, it held the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Doe I v. Otte, 259 F. 3d 979 (2001). We granted certiorari. 534 U. S. 1126 (2002). II This is the first time we have considered a claim that a sex offender registration and notification law constitutes retroactive punishment forbidden by the Ex Post Facto Clause. The framework for our inquiry, however, is well establishe…
• United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2002)
• Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (U.S. 2003)
  …We granted certiorari to address two questions: whether the CTEA’s extension of existing copyrights exceeds Congress’ power under the Copyright Clause; and whether the CTEA’s extension of existing and future copyrights violates the First Amendment. 534 U. S. 1126 and 1160 (2002). We now answer those two questions in the negative and affirm. [*199] II A We address first the determination of the courts below that Congress has authority under the Copyright Clause to extend the terms of existing copyrights. Te…