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

Government Officials Should Not Try to Influence Social...

July 8, 2024

To Head Off Strongman Governance, Keep Presidential Power...

January 31, 2024

Jack Dorsey on Why Social Media’s Future Should...

May 21, 2024

Friday Feature: Limestone Community School

December 20, 2024

Presidents Must Take Accountability for the Officers They...

May 1, 2023

Friday Feature: Shorashim Academy

December 15, 2023

Stablecoin Bills Galore, but How Do They Stack...

February 27, 2025

Tariffs, Uncertainty, and Small Businesses

March 14, 2025

The CBO Budget and Economic Outlook: Debt Projected...

February 8, 2024

California Implications of Britain’s Plan to Truncate its...

October 6, 2023

    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

    • CAFE Standards

      June 30, 2025
    • Trump signs order lifting sanctions on Syria

      June 30, 2025
    • Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ hits another snag in House as conservative caucus raises red flag

      June 30, 2025
    • ‘Antisemitic’ British band banned from US after viral ‘death to the IDF’ festival chants

      June 30, 2025
    • This Harm Reduction Innovation Is Already Saving Lives

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

      June 30, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,347)
    • Investing (2,089)
    • Politics (15,881)
    • Stocks (3,180)
    • 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