In Lindsey et al. v. Washington (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot increase the punishment for a crime after it has been committed, as this would violate the ex post facto clause of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing laws that retroactively change legal consequences or punishments for actions already committed. The case involved two defendants who were convicted and sentenced under a Washington State law mandating an automatic fifteen-year sentence for grand larceny, even though at the time they had committed their crimes, judges had discretion to impose sentences between zero and fifteen years based on individual circumstances. The court held in favor of Lindsey et al., ruling that increasing punishment retrospectively was unconstitutional because it deprived individuals of their right to fair warning about potential penalties associated with criminal behavior.

In the dissenting opinion for Lindsey et al. v. Washington, Justice Butler argued that the retroactive application of a law increasing minimum sentences was unconstitutional as it violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He believed that when Lindsey and his co-defendants committed their crimes, they had a constitutional right to be sentenced according to laws in effect at that time - which allowed for discretion in sentencing within certain limits - not by new laws enacted afterward. In essence, he viewed this change as an ex post facto law: one that retroactively changes legal consequences or punishments for actions already committed, something expressly prohibited by Article I of the Constitution. Therefore, he disagreed with majority's decision upholding Washington state’s revised statute mandating fixed-sentence terms without parole eligibility.