Understanding Ellingburg v. United States: Is it Restitution or Punishment?

Varun Mekala

February 2026

In a significant ruling delivered on January 20th, 2026, the Supreme Court addressed a long-standing debate regarding federal restitution, recompense for injury or loss. The Justices unanimously decided that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) is not only a tool in civil cases, but a form of criminal punishment too.

The case centered on Holsey Ellingburg Jr., who had to pay $7,567.25 in restitution after a 1996 conviction. Although Ellingburg’s crime occurred before the MVRA was enacted, he was sentenced under it.

Ellingburg challenged the order, arguing it violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, a constitutional protection that prevents the government from retroactively increasing punishment for a crime. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals initially rejected this, ruling that restitution was a civil remedy rather than criminal punishment.

Writing the opinion of the Court, Justice Kavanaugh explained that determining whether a law is "civil" or "criminal" requires looking at the statute's text and structure. The Court identified several "abundantly clear" indicators that MVRA restitution is criminal in nature.

Firstly, the MVRA labels restitution as a “penalty” for a criminal “offense”. Next, restitution is imposed during “sentencing,” alongside other punishments. Lastly, if a defendant fails to pay, a court can modify their probation or even impose imprisonment to serve the purposes of "punishment and deterrence."

By categorizing MVRA restitution as criminal punishment, the Supreme Court has set a clear standard for future Ex Post Facto challenges. While the MVRA is intended to compensate victims, the Court noted that victims cannot initiate or settle these restitution orders as they would in a private civil lawsuit.