Probably not. Justice Chase, in Calder v Bull, laid out the four principles that have guided ex post facto decisions ever since. None of those four principles apply here. The law was passed, then Kirk was appointed.
Now, I'm not entirely convinced that Kirk's appointment is allowable under the new statute. I'd like to read this Superior Court judge's decision to see exactly what his reasoning is for denying plaintiff's action.
You mean he needs one? We ARE talking about Democrats here, after all ...