What happened
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Eighth Circuit on Tuesday in a restitution fight, holding that monetary restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Writing for the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the statutory analysis was straightforward: MVRA restitution is “plainly criminal punishment” when the question is whether a later-enacted law may be applied to earlier conduct. The ruling sends petitioner Ellingburg's case back to the Eighth Circuit for further proceedings.
Ellingburg committed his crime before the MVRA became law in April 1996, but he was sentenced later that year and ordered to pay $7,567.25 in restitution. He challenged his continued obligation on ex post facto grounds, while the Eighth Circuit, applying circuit precedent, concluded that MVRA restitution was not criminal punishment.
The justices disagreed. The opinion emphasized that the MVRA labels restitution a penalty for a criminal offense, applies only to criminal defendants convicted of qualifying crimes, and imposes restitution at sentencing alongside punishments such as imprisonment and fines. The Court also noted that the federal restitution provisions sit in Title 18 and require criminal-procedure rules when restitution is imposed.
The Court rejected the idea that the MVRA's compensatory function made restitution civil. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the statute can both compensate victims and punish offenders, and that victims' notice or participation in criminal proceedings does not give them the power to initiate or settle restitution as if it were a civil case.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, concurred separately to question the modern framework for identifying punishment under the Ex Post Facto Clauses. He said future cases should consider returning to Calder v. Bull's historical approach, under which a coercive penalty for a public wrong could fall within the clauses even if a legislature labels the proceeding civil.
The decision does not end Ellingburg's case. On remand, the Eighth Circuit may consider the government's separate arguments for affirming the district court's judgment.