Which makes it legal. When the courts interpret law it addresses a case and informs going forward. I don't believe, for instance, people can be retroactively tried for abortions during the period Roe V. Wade stood.
Pedandtly, this is not true. You might think something you’re doing is legal, but when someone takes you to court, it’s because they’re arguing that what you’re doing is already illegal. And if the court sided with them, then what you were doing was illegal the whole time. Courts don’t make laws, they interpret existing laws. Everyone can interpret laws in their own favor, but it doesn’t make things ‘legal’ in the definitive sense
Roe v. Wade is a ruling that people have a right to abortions. Removing it removes the right. It doesn’t retroactively remove the right.
A new law that is passed doesn’t have retroactive power
A court ruling that the thing you’ve been doing for a year has been breaking an existing law can absolutely punish you for it. But it’s unlikely to punish random individuals doing things on a non noteworthy scale when a clear understanding of the law in a new context has not been established.
I'm not sure this is true; it addresses a case, which means the interpretation already is ex-post-facto. I don't know the answer, but it wouldn't surprise me if, in states with anti-abortion laws standing for which the statute of limitations has not expired, abortion providers could be held legally liable.
Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the US Constitution, both at federal and state levels. [1]
At least, at this time, with current interpretation- "the Supreme Court has explained that people must have notice of the possible criminal penalties for their actions at the time they act" [2] (See also Weaver v Graham[3])
The laws are not ex post facto. They have been on the books, on some cases for over 100 years. States were not enforcing them, because they believed they were constitutionally prohibited from doing so.
