Ellingburg v. United States
607 U. S. 163 (2026) · 1/20/26
Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Edition: preliminary print (page proof)
Voices: Syllabus — prepared by the Reporter of Decisions · Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. · Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, concurring.
The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 requires defendants convicted of certain federal crimes to pay monetary restitution to victims. Although petitioner Ellingburg committed his crime before the MVRA's enactment, he was sentenced under the MVRA and ordered to pay $7,567.25 in restitution. Ellingburg raised an Ex Post Facto Clause challenge to his continued restitution obligation. The Eighth Circuit concluded that restitution under the MVRA is not criminal punishment subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Held: Restitution under the MVRA is plainly criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Whether a law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause requires evaluating whether the law imposes a criminal or penal sanction as opposed to a civil remedy. That question is one “of statutory construction” that requires the Court to “consider the statute's text and its structure.” Smith v. Doe, 538 U. S. 84, 92 (quotation marks omitted). When viewed as a whole, the MVRA makes abundantly clear that restitution is criminal punishment. The MVRA labels restitution as a “penalty” for a criminal…Read it in the reading room ›