Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 24-482Jan 20, 2026Crime and Law EnforcementReversed and remanded

The question

Whether restitution ordered under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 is criminal punishment subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Ellingburg v. United States

What the Court decided

The Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and held that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The MVRA's text and structure show Congress intended restitution to be a penal sanction: the statute labels it a penalty for a criminal offense, only a convicted defendant may be ordered to pay it, it is imposed at sentencing alongside imprisonment and fines, and the Government, not the victim, is the adverse party. The case was remanded.

How the justices split

Unanimous
In favor 9
Roberts
Thomas
Alito
Sotomayor
Kagan
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Jackson

The Court's opinion

Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson

Restitution under the MVRA is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Whether a law imposes a penal sanction rather than a civil remedy is a question of statutory construction resolved by the statute's text and structure. The MVRA labels restitution a penalty for a criminal offense, permits it only against a defendant convicted of a qualifying crime, imposes it at sentencing alongside imprisonment and fines, and makes the Government the party adverse to the defendant. The regime is codified in Title 18 among sentencing provisions and follows the procedures for other criminal penalties. Precedent has treated MVRA restitution as criminal punishment, and although Congress meant restitution both to punish offenders and compensate victims, victims cannot initiate or settle the process as they could in a civil proceeding.

Concurring

Thomas, joined by Gorsuch

Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Gorsuch.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Court held that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The Eighth Circuit had concluded that restitution under the MVRA is not criminal punishment subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The MVRA labels restitution a penalty for a criminal offense and imposes it at sentencing alongside punishments such as imprisonment and fines.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, and Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Gorsuch.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • The Court reversed and remanded the judgment reported at 113 F. 4th 839.

    Source: syllabus, Held

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov