Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Ellingburg v. United States Brief: Criminal Restitution Counts as Criminal Punishment

by June 30, 2025
June 30, 2025
Ellingburg v. United States Brief: Criminal Restitution Counts as Criminal Punishment

Matthew Cavedon

In 1995, when petitioner Holsey Ellingburg, Jr., robbed a bank, federal criminal restitution was governed by the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA). The VWPA provided that a defendant’s liability to pay restitution ended twenty years after the entry of judgment. Then, in 1996, Congress enacted the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), which extended the liability period to twenty years after a defendant’s release from imprisonment and required that restitution include interest. The MVRA’s drafters apparently anticipated the possibility that its retroactive application might violate the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause: Congress explicitly made the Act retroactive only “to the extent constitutionally permissible.”

The issue in this case is whether that concern was correct. 
Holsey Ellingburg’s sentence included just shy of 27 years’ imprisonment and $7,567.25 in restitution. He paid $2,054.04 toward this during the twenty years authorized by the VWPA. In the past three years, he has returned to society, living with his fiancée and trying to make ends meet. However, his probation officer maintains that he still has to make $100 monthly restitution payments, and the government says he now owes $13,476.01 total—almost twice as much as his sentence originally imposed and far more than he owed at the close of the VWPA restitution period.
Ellingburg sought judicial relief. The district court held that the MVRA’s extension of the restitution period did not increase his punishment. The Eighth Circuit instead applied its own precedent holding that criminal restitution is not subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause at all because it is a civil remedy rather than a criminal punishment. Two of the three panel members wrote a concurring opinion criticizing this precedent, but the Eighth Circuit denied rehearing en banc.
After the Supreme Court granted Ellingburg’s cert petition, the government decided not to defend the Eighth Circuit’s decision and to instead file a brief in support of Ellingburg. Cato and the Fines and Fees Justice Center are pleased to file a brief that joins the parties in asking the Court to vacate the decision. 
Criminal restitution is punishment under the Court’s modern precedent. Historical authorities support this conclusion. While those are adequate reasons to rule in Ellingburg’s favor, the Court should also revive a broader understanding of what qualifies as criminal punishment more broadly, revisiting issues like sex-offender registration, monetary penalties, and civil asset forfeiture.
0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
DHSC accused of wasting PPE Medpro gowns as experts reveal missed £85m resale opportunity
next post
This Harm Reduction Innovation Is Already Saving Lives

You may also like

Clearing the Air on Particulate Matter Regulation

July 16, 2025

What Are the Black Students Still Getting into...

September 26, 2024

Q&A with House Budget Committee Members

December 19, 2024

Borders Matter, Even for Purist Free Traders

September 15, 2023

Will Oregonians Strangle Drug Decriminalization Right After Its...

September 20, 2023

Oregon Lawmakers Roll back New Drug War Strategy...

March 2, 2024

Facing the 2025 Fiscal Cliff: Reduce Deficits with...

November 19, 2024

Prices and Price Controls: An Introduction

August 19, 2024

Employer-Sponsored Green Card Processing Takes over Three Years 

May 2, 2024

Locating Islam in the “New” Middle East

February 11, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Obama-era officials mum on allegations of ‘manufactured’ intelligence launching Trump-Russia probe

      July 21, 2025
    • Hunter Biden special counsel got ‘one resume’ from DOJ to help prosecute president’s son

      July 21, 2025
    • Iran will not give up nuclear enrichment, top official confirms in exclusive Fox News interview

      July 21, 2025
    • AOC slams progressive critics for ‘lying’ about her Iron Dome stance in defense bill fight

      July 21, 2025
    • China Shocked? Hard Hit Metropolitan Statistical Areas Have Performed Well Economically Since 2000

      July 21, 2025
    • Trump’s first six months in office spark surge in Bitcoin millionaires, new research reveals

      July 21, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,536)
    • Investing (2,136)
    • Politics (16,144)
    • Stocks (3,222)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved