government purposes since it treats citizens of different circuits differently and distinguishes between persons who filed suit before June 19,1991, and those who filed suit after that date. We address these two arguments in turn. 1. Due Process Scientific contends that section 27A is unconstitutional because it denies Scientific due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Scientific’s argument is premised, at least in part, upon the fact that Congress’s intent in enacting section 27A was to direct the outcome of pending litigation. The fact that it has an effect upon pending litigation does not constitute a due process violation. See International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers v. Robbins & Myers, 429 U.S. 229, 243-44, 97 S.Ct. 441, 450-51, 50 L.Ed.2d 427 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Scientific also maintains that the “statute
holding that any reliance by the parole board on inadmissible hearsay did not violate due process holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that evidence obtained from valid search warrant did not violate constitutional due process provisions holding that revival by statute of an action which was already timebarred did not violate due process holding that 18month delay in filing forfeiture action did not violate due process