Upcoming Case Preview | Ellingburg v. United States | The Restitution Riddle: When Does Compensation Become Punishment?

Ellingburg v. United States | Case No. 24-482 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Overview

This episode examines Ellingburg v. United States, one of the most procedurally unusual Supreme Court cases in recent memory. After the Court granted certiorari, the government switched positions following a change in presidential Administration, now agreeing with the criminal defendant that the Eighth Circuit erred. The Court appointed an outside attorney as amicus curiae to defend the lower court's judgment, creating a rare scenario where both named parties argue for the same outcome. At its core, the case asks whether mandatory criminal restitution constitutes punishment subject to the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause—a question with profound implications for thousands of federal defendants and the government's authority to retroactively enforce criminal restitution obligations.

Episode RoadmapOpening: A Procedural Rarity

• Government switches sides after Administration change
• Court appoints amicus curiae to defend Eighth Circuit's judgment
• Unusual three-way legal battle over fundamental constitutional question
• Implications for thousands convicted of federal crimes before 1996

Background: Ellingburg's Story

• 1995: Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. robs bank in St. Louis, Missouri
• 1996: Sentenced to 322 months imprisonment, ordered to pay $7,567 restitution under pre-MVRA law (VWPA)
• Under original law, restitution obligation expired November 2016 (20-year limit)
• 2022: Released from prison, rebuilding life on minimum wage
• 2023: Government demands $13,476 using MVRA's extended collection period and mandatory interest
• Pro se motion challenges retroactive application as Ex Post Facto violation

The Central Legal Question

• Is MVRA restitution criminal punishment or civil remedy?
• If criminal: Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits retroactive application
• If civil: Government can apply new collection rules to old offenses
• Statutory construction as threshold issue: What did Congress intend?

Procedural Journey Through the Courts

• District Court: Denied motion, held MVRA application merely "procedural"
• Eighth Circuit: Affirmed on different ground—restitution is civil remedy, not criminal punishment
• Circuit relied on Carruth precedent despite Pasquantino and Paroline developments
• Two concurring judges questioned binding precedent's continued validity
• Supreme Court grants certiorari to resolve circuit split

Constitutional Framework: The Ex Post Facto Clause

• Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No ex post facto Law shall be passed"
• Prohibits retroactively increasing punishment for criminal acts
• Only applies to criminal laws, not civil remedies
• Constitutional protection against arbitrary government power

The Statutory Text Battle

• Section 3663A: Restitution ordered "when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense"
• "In addition to, or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law"
• Codification in Title 18 criminal code, Chapter 227 "Sentences"
• Criminal procedures govern: presentence reports, probation officers, appellate review
• Enforcement through threat of imprisonment for nonpayment

Petitioner's Three Main Arguments

Argument 1: Text and Structure Prove Criminal Intent

• Statutory language integrates restitution into criminal sentencing
• Grouped with fines and...