Supreme Court Says Victim Restitution Law Is Criminal Penalty

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that a victim restitution law represents a criminal punishment as it revived a challenge by a convicted bank robber of an outstanding penalty he faces under a statute enacted after his crime was committed.

The justices in a 9-0 ruling issued Tuesday sided with Holsey Ellingburg Jr., who is fighting attempts from authorities to collect restitution stemming from a 1995 bank robbery.

Ellingburg brought a constitutional challenge arguing his crime happened before his being sentenced under the 1996 Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.

The decision, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said that law “is plainly criminal punishment for the purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.” The clause in the Constitution bars the imposition of criminal penalties based on statutes that didn’t exist when the crime occurred.

The opinion reversed a lower court ruling that rejected Ellingburg’s challenge under the theory that the MVRA was not a criminal punishment. It remanded the case for further proceedings. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.

“Our ruling today does not mean that a restitution statute can never be civil,” Kavanaugh said. “But the statutory text and structure of the MVRA demonstrate that restitution under that Act is criminal punishment.”

It’s likely to affect only a small number of federal inmates who were sentenced to lengthy prison terms prior to enactment of the MVRA. As of March 2025, nearly 90% of federal inmates currently serving time behind bars were sentenced within the past 10 years, according to the US Sentencing Commission.

Ellingburg challenged lower courts’ holdings that he was still obligated to pay thousands of dollars in restitution upon his release in 2022 despite a 20-year expiry window set by the Victim and Witness Protection Act, which was in effect at the time of the robbery.

Congress enacted the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act after Ellingburg’s offense but prior to his sentencing. The MVRA extended the prior window on restitution payments to 20 years after release and also imposed mandatory interest on unpaid obligations.

The justices heard Ellingburg’s appeal in October. In an unusual move, the Trump administration informed the court last spring it would no longer be defending Ellingburg’s sentence and would be joining his attorney, Amy Saharia of Williams & Connolly, at arguments.

In a motion supporting vacatur, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said criminal restitution was intended to be punitive, and not civil, and therefore couldn’t be imposed or altered retroactively under the test established in Smith v. Doe.

The case is Holsey Ellingburg v. United States, U.S., No. 24-482, decided on 1/20/26.