Ellingburg v. United States

Overview

A case in which the Court held that criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Facts

Petitioner Ellingburg committed a federal crime before the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 was enacted. He was later sentenced under the MVRA and ordered to pay $7,567.25 in restitution. He challenged the restitution obligation as a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, arguing the MVRA could not be applied retroactively. The Eighth Circuit rejected the challenge, concluding that MVRA restitution is not criminal punishment subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Issue

Whether the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits application of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 to a defendant whose crime was committed before the Act was enacted, when the MVRA makes restitution mandatory rather than discretionary.

Rule

The Ex Post Facto Clause (Art. I, § 9, cl. 3) prohibits laws that retroactively increase the punishment for offenses already committed. Under Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), courts presume against retroactive application of statutes that increase legal burdens. Mandatory restitution under the MVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3663A) is part of the criminal sentence and constitutes punishment; imposing a mandatory restitution obligation for pre-MVRA offenses where restitution was previously discretionary may violate Ex Post Facto protections.

Analysis

The MVRA makes it plain that restitution is criminal punishment. The statute labels restitution a "penalty" for a criminal "offense." Only a convicted criminal defendant can be ordered to pay. Restitution is imposed at sentencing alongside imprisonment and fines. The Government, not the victim, is the party adverse to the defendant at sentencing. The statute is codified in Title 18 ("Crimes and Criminal Procedure"), Chapter 232 ("Miscellaneous Sentencing Provisions"). A court imposing restitution follows criminal sentencing procedures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held unanimously that restitution under the MVRA is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Gorsuch. Reversed and remanded.

The decision means MVRA restitution cannot be imposed retroactively on defendants who committed their crimes before the Act was enacted.