In Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), the United States Supreme Court held that the government violates the ex post facto clause when a law creates a new criminal limitations period that extends the time in which prosecution is allowed when the statute of limitations has previously expired, because it in essence revives a previously time-barred prosecution. Id. Thus, the retroactive extension of a statute of limitations for a criminal offense that was barred by the statute of limitations under previous law is a violation of the ex post facto clause. The United States Supreme Court has held that "a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution." In Stogner, the Court set forth the issue and inquiry as follows: The Constitution's two Ex Post Facto Clauses prohibit the Federal Government and the States from enacting laws with certain retroactive effects. See Art. I, 9, cl. 3 (Federal Government); Art. I, 10, cl. 1 (States). The law at issue here created a new criminal limitations period that extends the time in which prosecution is allowed. It authorized criminal prosecutions that the passage of time had previously barred. Moreover, it was enacted after prior limitations periods for Stogner's alleged offenses had expired. Do these features of the law, taken together, produce the kind of retroactivity that the Constitution forbids? We conclude that they do. Id. at 610. However, the Court stated that neither its decision nor the Ex Post Facto Clause "prevent the State from extending time limits for the prosecution of future offenses, or for prosecutions not yet time barred." Id. at 632. The Court reasoned that a statute that retroactively applies to an unexpired statute of limitations is not ex post facto in light of "history, case law, and constitutional purposes." Id. at 630-31. The majority opinion in Stogner, noted Justice Kennedy in his dissent, left "in place the uniform decisions by state and federal courts to uphold retroactive extension of unexpired statutes of limitations against an ex post facto challenge." Id. at 650 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).