Holsey Ellingburg, Jr., Petitioner v. United States

The case asked whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act counts as punishment for the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause. The Supreme Court unanimously said the Eighth Circuit got that question wrong, reversed its judgment, and sent the case back.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote a 9-0 opinion reversing the Eighth Circuit and remanding the case.

Majority

Kavanaugh

Roberts

Thomas

Gorsuch

Alito

Sotomayor

Kagan

Barrett

Jackson

“Justice Kavanaugh said the issue was one of statutory construction, requiring the Court to consider the statute's text and structure.”

The ruling affects federal defendants with ongoing restitution duties, along with victims and prosecutors involved in collecting those payments. For example, lower courts now must follow the Supreme Court's approach when a defendant says a later legal change cannot be applied to restitution.

The case returns to the lower courts for further proceedings under the Supreme Court's decision. Federal courts and lawyers will also use this ruling in future fights over restitution and retroactive legal changes.

The dispute was whether MVRA restitution is punishment for Ex Post Facto Clause purposes. That matters when a defendant challenges a later legal change affecting restitution.

Federal defendants with continuing restitution obligations are directly affected. Victims, prosecutors, and courts are affected too because the ruling shapes how restitution disputes are analyzed.

The case goes back to the lower courts for more proceedings. They must apply the Supreme Court's ruling when deciding Ellingburg's restitution challenge.