High Court To Hear Case on Retroactive Punishment

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Kansas City bank robber’s case challenging retroactive punishment, questioning whether criminal restitution laws can be enforced beyond their original time limits.

Key Insights

The Supreme Court will review whether applying newer, stricter restitution laws to older cases violates the Constitution’s ban on ex post facto punishment.
Bank robber Holsey Ellingburg Jr. argues his restitution obligation expired in 2016 under the law in place when he was convicted in 1995.
The government claims Ellingburg still owes $13,476.01, exceeding his original $7,500 restitution order.
Federal appeals courts are split on whether criminal restitution is punitive (subject to ex post facto protections) or purely civil in nature.

Constitutional Challenge to Retroactive Restitution

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a significant case from Kansas City that could determine whether the government can retroactively extend restitution obligations for criminal defendants. The case centers on Holsey Ellingburg Jr., who was sentenced to 27 years in federal prison and ordered to pay $7,500 in restitution for a 1995 bank robbery. At the time of his sentencing, restitution was governed by the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), which had specific time limitations for collecting payments from defendants. Under this law, his liability would have expired in 2016.

The legal dispute arose because Congress passed the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) in 1996, a year after Ellingburg’s conviction. This new law significantly extended the restitution liability period to 20 years following a conviction or 20 years after release from prison, whichever comes later. Ellingburg and his attorneys argue that applying this newer, stricter law to his case violates the U.S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause, which prohibits the government from retroactively changing the legal consequences of actions committed before the law was enacted.

Legal Battle Over Restitution Timeline

Ellingburg maintains that his restitution obligation expired in 2016 under the original VWPA terms that governed his sentence. However, the government disagrees, asserting that the MVRA’s longer collection period applies to his case. According to court documents, the government claims Ellingburg still owes $13,476.01 in restitution—a sum that now exceeds his original $7,500 obligation due to interest and fees that have accumulated over time.

In August 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ellingburg, determining that restitution is fundamentally a civil remedy rather than a criminal punishment. This classification is crucial because the Constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto laws only applies to criminal penalties. The appeals court’s decision aligns with several other circuit courts but conflicts with rulings from different jurisdictions, creating a split that typically prompts Supreme Court intervention.

Supreme Court to Resolve Circuit Split

The fundamental question the Supreme Court will address is whether criminal restitution constitutes “punishment” under the Constitution’s ex post facto clause. This determination could have significant implications for thousands of federal defendants with outstanding restitution obligations. Ellingburg’s case highlights a meaningful split among federal courts on this issue, with some circuits viewing restitution as primarily punitive and others considering it purely remedial in nature.

Broader Implications for Federal Restitution

The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling may have far-reaching consequences for federal restitution practices nationwide. If the Court sides with Ellingburg, it could invalidate the retroactive application of the MVRA to defendants sentenced before its enactment, potentially affecting countless restitution orders currently being enforced under the newer law’s extended timeline. Alternatively, if the Court upholds the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning, it would affirm the government’s ability to extend collection periods for restitution regardless of when the underlying crime occurred.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case during its new term beginning in October, with a decision likely by June 2026. Legal experts are closely watching this case as it could significantly clarify the boundaries between civil remedies and criminal punishments in the federal justice system, particularly regarding financial obligations imposed on defendants.