This is how the judge explained it to me: Vested means to create. Muniz merely assigned the legal rights we were being deprived of. You can’t assign something you created. When you create, you give someone something that didn’t exist.
Our right to ex post facto protections existed before Muniz. The state was merely saying SORNA was an exception to the rule becuase it was civil. The Court simply said that SORNA was not an exception it was criminal and thus qualified for ex post facto protections.
Now, Pa is claiming the same thing with Act 10. They are saying that the rule (ex post facto) that was created hundreds of years ago does not apply becuase Act 10 is civil and is therefore immune.