Ellingburg v. United States
Lower Court: Unknown • Last updated: January 20, 2026
Plain-Language Summary
The Supreme Court ruled in Ellingburg v. United States that mandatory restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) constitutes criminal punishment subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause. Ellingburg committed his crime before the MVRA was enacted but was sentenced under it and ordered to pay $7,567.25 in restitution. He argued that applying the MVRA retroactively violated the Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws.
Justice Kavanaugh authored the opinion, holding that restitution under the MVRA is "plainly criminal punishment" because it is imposed as part of a criminal sentence and serves punitive purposes. The Eighth Circuit's contrary conclusion was reversed.
Why This Matters
This decision has practical consequences for defendants sentenced under laws enacted after their crimes were committed. By confirming that mandatory restitution is criminal punishment, the Court ensures that the Ex Post Facto Clause protects defendants from being subjected to financial penalties that did not exist when they broke the law, reinforcing a fundamental constitutional safeguard.