Opinion Summary: Ellingburg v. United States | Retroactivity Rejected: SCOTUS Verdict on Victim Restitution

Ellingburg v. United States | Case No. 24-482 | Docket Link: HereLinks: Opinion: Here.Oral Argument: HereCase Preview: HereOverview: Ellingburg committed a crime in 1996 before Congress enacted a new law requiring convicted defendants to pay restitution to victims. Courts later sentenced Ellingburg under this new law and ordered him to pay $7,567.25 - money he never paid. Ellingburg challenged this restitution order as unconstitutional retroactive punishment, arguing the government cannot apply new penalties to old crimes. The case forces the Supreme Court to determine whether victim restitution constitutes criminal punishment protected by the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws.Question Presented: Whether restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 constitutes criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.Holding: The Supreme Court held that restitution under the MVRA constitutes criminal punishment subject to Ex Post Facto Clause analysis.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Gorsuch.Majority's Rationale: Congress explicitly labeled MVRA restitution as a "penalty" for criminal offenses imposed during sentencing alongside imprisonment and fines. The statute appears in the criminal code and requires courts to follow criminal procedure rules when ordering restitution. Defendants who refuse to pay face potential imprisonment for punishment and deterrence purposes, confirming the criminal nature.Concurring Rationale: Justice Thomas argued the Court should abandon its current twelve-factor test for determining criminal punishment. The original 1798 understanding of ex post facto laws protected against any retroactive government penalties for public wrongs. Modern courts should focus on whether laws impose coercive sanctions for offenses against government authority, regardless of civil labels.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Amy M. Saharia, Washington, D.C. argued for petitioner.For Respondent in Support of Vacatur: Ashley Robertson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice argued for respondent in support of vacatur.For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below: John F. Bash, Austin, Texas.