Plain-English summary
Court rules MVRA restitution counts as criminal punishment under Ex Post Facto Clause; reverses and remands
In Holsey Ellingburg Jr. v. United States (No. 24-482), the Supreme Court held that restitution ordered under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) is a form of criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case. The decision was unanimous with a concurring opinion.
Why this matters
This ruling treats MVRA restitution as punitive for constitutional purposes, so courts must apply ex post facto protections when restitution increases or changes after an offense. The decision affects sentencing procedures, retroactive application of changes to restitution law, and challenges by defendants who say they are being punished more harshly after the fact.
Who may feel it
- People sentenced under federal criminal statutes where MVRA restitution applies
- Defense attorneys and prosecutors handling federal restitution orders
- Federal judges who impose or modify restitution
- Victims who receive court-ordered restitution
- Challenges to retroactive changes in restitution rules or amounts
Key questions
- Is criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act 'punishment' for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause?