Ellingberg v. United States (Restitution & Ex Post Facto Clause)
Échec de l'ajout au panier.
Échec de l'ajout à la liste d'envies.
Échec de la suppression de la liste d’envies.
Échec du suivi du balado
Ne plus suivre le balado a échoué
Ellingberg v. United States (Restitution & Ex Post Facto Clause)
-
Narrateur(s):
-
Auteur(s):
À propos de cet audio
Send us a text
The Court unanimously held that restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is a form of criminal punishment, meaning it cannot be applied to conduct that occurred before the statute was enacted without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause. Although Ellingburg’s offense predated the MVRA, he was sentenced under it and ordered to pay restitution. The Eighth Circuit had treated MVRA restitution as a civil, nonpunitive measure, but the Supreme Court rejected that view. Looking to the statute’s text, structure, and placement within the criminal code, the Court emphasized that restitution is imposed only on convicted defendants, at sentencing, alongside imprisonment and fines, and through procedures governing criminal penalties. Prior precedents likewise treated MVRA restitution as punitive. While restitution also serves compensatory aims, victims cannot control or negotiate it as they could in a civil action, underscoring its criminal nature. The Court therefore reversed and remanded.