1 U.S.C. § 109
Repeal of statutes as affecting existing liabilities
The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such statute, unless the repealing Act shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability. The expiration of a temporary statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such statute, unless the temporary statute shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 453
cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Holiday v. United States, 683 A.2d 61 (D.C. 1996).
Holiday v. United States, 683 A.2d 61 (D.C. 1996). “Since 1871, Congress has kept in force a general savings statute, apparently modeled on earlier state statutes, [19] and now codified at 1 U.S.C. § 109 (1994): The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability…”
Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012). “The general federal saving statute (1871 Act) provides that a new criminal statute that “repeal[s]” an older criminal statute shall not change the penalties “incurred” under that older statute “unless the repealing Act shall so expressly provide.”
Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Express Corp., 247 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2001). “In order to avoid the potentially disruptive implications of this common law rule, Congress has enacted a general savings statute, 1 U.S.C. § 109 , which provides that [t]he repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or…”
United States v. Jarreous Blewitt, 746 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2013). “Consistent with a 142- year-old congressional presumption against applying reductions in criminal penalties to those already sentenced, 1 U.S.C. § 109 , consistent with the views of all nine Justices and all of the litigants in Dorsey v.”
United States v. Michael Palmer, 854 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “Sentencing courts were confronted with two statutes that were in tension: a general federal saving statute 7 provided that courts should apply the sentence in effect at the time the offense occurred unless Congress “expressly provide[s]” that a later statute should be used, 1…”
United States v. Holcomb, 657 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2011). “But in 1871 Congress enacted the General Saving Statute, now codified as 1 U.S.C. § 109 , which makes all changes prospective unless the new statute provides otherwise.”
United States v. Marjorie J. Jacobs, 919 F.2d 10 (3rd Cir. 1990). “Specifically, we must decide whether 1 U.S.C. § 109 (1985), commonly referred to as the “saving statute,” prevents an amendment of 18 U.”
United States v. Sylvan Abney, 812 F.3d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “at 2330–31 (referencing 1 U.S.C. § 109 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(4)(A)(ii)).”
United States v. Joshua Acoff, 634 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2011). “Under the general 13 savings statute, 1 U.S.C. § 109 , “[t]he repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release 14 or extinguish any penalty .”
Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964). “635 , 1 U. S. C. § 109 (1958 ed.), would nullify abatement of a federal conviction.”
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). “The largest category of cases in which we have applied the presumption against statutory retroactivity has involved new provisions affecting contractual or property rights, matters in which predictability and stability are of prime importance. [25] The presumption has not,…”
United States v. Reevey, 631 F.3d 110 (3rd Cir. 2010). “The government asserts that retroactive application of the FSA is precluded by the general “Savings Statute” found at 1 U.S.C. § 109 . The Savings Statute, in pertinent part, provides: The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.