News and analysis right to your inbox. Click to get Ballotpedia’s newsletters!

Ellingburg v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Ellingburg v. United States
Term: 2025
Important Dates
Argued: October 14, 2025
Decided: January 20, 2026
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch

Ellingburg v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 20, 2026, during the court's October 2025-2026 term. The case was argued before the Court on October 14, 2025. In a 9-0 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, holding that restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is plainly criminal punishment for the purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. [1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause."[2]
  • The outcome: In a 9-0 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, holding that restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is plainly criminal punishment for the purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. [1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Holsey Ellingburg, Jr.
      • Legal counsel: Lisa Schiavo Blatt (Williams & Connolly LLP)
    • Respondent: United States

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez

    “

    In December 1995, Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. robbed a bank and was indicted in April 1996. He was convicted in August 1996 and sentenced to prison, along with an order to pay over $7,500 in restitution under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA). Following his release from prison in June 2022, having paid only about one-quarter of the original restitution amount, Mr. Ellingburg filed a motion arguing that enforcement of his restitution order was unlawful. He claimed that the applicable 20-year payment period under the VWPA had expired and that applying a longer restitution term and mandatory interest provision under the later-enacted Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.

    The district court rejected Mr. Ellingburg’s arguments and upheld the restitution order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • January 20, 2026: In a 9-0 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit..[1]
    • October 14, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • April 7, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • October 25, 2024: Holsey Ellingburg appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

    [4]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, holding that restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is plainly criminal punishment for the purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. [1] Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court.

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “

    Our ruling today does not mean that a restitution statute can never be civil. But the statutory text and structure of the MVRA demonstrate that restitution under that Act is criminal punishment.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly applies our precedent. I write separately to clarify the foundation of that precedent. This Court’s 1798 decision in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, established that the Ex Post Facto Clauses forbid only those retroactive laws that impose “punishment” for a “crime.” Id., at 386, 389–391 (opinion of Chase, J.). Over the 228 years since Calder, the Court has struggled to articulate what it means for a law to impose punishment for a crime, and thus to be subject to the Ex Post Facto Clauses. The Court’s more recent precedents have implemented Calder through two multifactor tests that turn largely on whether the legislature labels the law as criminal or civil. But in 1798, “punishment” for a “crime” would have been understood to refer to any coercive penalty for a public wrong. Many laws that are nominally civil today would therefore have been subject to the Ex Post Facto Clauses under Calder. I would restore Calder’s approach to the Ex Post Facto Clauses.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[7]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Supreme Court of the United States, "Ellingburg v. United States" January 22, 2026
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-482 ELLINGBURG V. UNITED STATES QP", April 7, 2025
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-482," accessed May 5, 2025
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 14, 2025
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 14, 2025
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ellingburg_v._United_States&oldid=11034320"