Holsey Ellingburg, Jr., Petitioner v. United States

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that restitution required by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) is a criminal punishment. The Court reversed a lower court decision, finding that because the law labels restitution as a penalty and ties it to criminal sentencing, it must follow constitutional rules. This means the government cannot use the law to increase punishments for crimes committed before the law was passed.

This ruling protects people from the Ex Post Facto Clause, which stops the government from retroactively increasing punishments for old crimes. If restitution were considered a civil remedy (a way to pay someone back) instead of a punishment, the government could apply new, higher costs to old cases. Now, courts must treat these payments as part of a formal criminal sentence.

The case centers on whether restitution is meant to punish a defendant or simply compensate a victim. The Court looked at the law's structure and found it is clearly criminal because it is listed in the 'Crimes and Criminal Procedure' section of federal law. This clarifies that even if a law helps a victim, it is still a punishment if it is part of a criminal conviction.

9-0. Majority: Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson.

Majority

Kavanaugh

Roberts

Thomas

Gorsuch

Alito

Sotomayor

Kagan

Barrett

Jackson

“The text and structure of the MVRA make it clear that the restitution it mandates is a criminal punishment.”

Restitution under the MVRA is a criminal penalty, meaning it cannot be applied retroactively to crimes committed before the law existed.

The case goes back to the Eighth Circuit court to reconsider Holsey Ellingburg’s restitution order. Other defendants who had restitution amounts increased by laws passed after their crimes may now have grounds to challenge those orders. This decision will likely limit how the government collects money from people convicted of older federal crimes.

The Court noted that the MVRA specifically labels restitution as a 'penalty' for a criminal 'offense.' It also pointed out that restitution is imposed during sentencing alongside other punishments like prison time and fines.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, argued that the Court's current test for these cases is flawed. He believes the Ex Post Facto Clause should apply to any retroactive law that imposes a coercive penalty for a public wrong.

No, the ruling acknowledges that the law serves a goal of compensating victims. However, it clarifies that the government is the one in charge of the process, which makes it a criminal punishment rather than a private civil matter.