Retroactive v. Prospective Legislation in California

In most instances, legislation applies prospectively, meaning after the law has been enacted and takes effect. Nonetheless, there are times when the Legislature desires statutes to be applied retroactively, and sometimes they also specify a prospective application date.

The following is an example of specific language contained in a bill that is intended to apply retroactively:

The requirement to provide COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave as set forth in this section shall take effect 10 days after the date of enactment of this section, at which time the requirements shall apply retroactively to January 1, 2021.

Another approach used on occasion is the following is an example of language where the Legislature states its intent that a court apply the bill retroactively:

It is the intent of the Legislature that a court interpret this section, as amended by the act adding this subdivision, in a manner consistent with the interpretation of this section as it read prior to January 1, 2013.

There are even instances when the Legislature states that a bill is not to apply in a retroactive manner. The following is an example of language stating that a bill is not intended to apply retroactively:

The amendments to this section made by Senate Bill No. 284 of the 2021–22 Regular Session (SB 284), shall not apply retroactively to injuries occurring before January 1, 2022.

And, we have instances where the Legislature states that a law is to be applied only prospectively. The following is an example of language that a bill is intended to apply in a prospective manner:

For individuals newly covered by this section by the amendments made to this section by SB 284, this section shall only apply to injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2022.

In all of the above examples, the Legislature either states the operative date of statutory language or the Legislature expresses its intent about when the statutory language will apply. In either instance, the courts of this state generally go through a process by which they determine whether the statutory language will or will not be applied retroactively in specific circumstances.

While intent statements are not determinative, the courts will generally follow the stated wishes of the Legislature. However, in order to avoid ambiguity and possible misapplication by the courts, the Legislature should be explicit in the statutory language about it applying retroactively, Moreover, it would be good practice for the Legislature to include findings and declarations, followed by intent language, explaining the purpose of applying a particular statute retroactively so that their desire is clear to the courts and those that are affected by it.