Ellingburg v. United States: Restitution as Criminal Punishment

In Ellingburg v. United States, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) constitutes criminal punishment rather than a civil remedy. Writing for the Court, Justice Kavanaugh determined that because the MVRA labels restitution as a penalty, imposes it at sentencing, and mandates its use following a criminal conviction, it is subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause. This decision reverses an appellate ruling, confirming that the government cannot retroactively apply the Act's heightened requirements to crimes committed before its passage. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred to argue for a broader historical interpretation of what qualifies as punishment. He suggested that the Court should focus on whether a law redresses a public wrong through sovereign enforcement rather than relying on modern multifactor tests. Ultimately, the sources clarify that statutory labels cannot exempt punitive financial obligations from constitutional protections against retroactive legislation.