MVRA Restitution Counts as Criminal Punishment

On January 20, 2026, the Supreme Court unanimously held that restitution ordered under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) "is plainly criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause." The case is Ellingburg v. United States, 607 U.S. 163 (2026).

Restitution is a court order to pay a victim back for losses caused by the crime. The MVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, requires federal courts to order it for many crimes.

What happened in the case

The petitioner, Ellingburg, committed his crime before the MVRA became law on April 24, 1996. He was sentenced later in 1996 under the MVRA and ordered to pay $7,567.25 in restitution, which he had not finished paying.

He argued that applying the MVRA to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. That clause bars the government from punishing a crime more harshly than the law allowed when the crime was committed. It applies only to criminal punishment, not to civil remedies. The Eighth Circuit held that MVRA restitution is not criminal punishment, so the clause did not apply.

What the Supreme Court decided

The Court reversed. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch.

The Court looked at the MVRA's text and structure. Among the reasons it gave:

• the MVRA calls restitution a "penalty" for a criminal "offense";
• only a person convicted of a qualifying crime can be ordered to pay it;
• it is imposed at sentencing, together with prison and fines, with the government, not the victim, as the opposing party;
• it sits in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, "Crimes and Criminal Procedure."

The Court agreed that the MVRA also aims to compensate victims. But because Congress intended restitution to punish as well, it is criminal punishment for Ex Post Facto purposes.

What the decision does not decide

The ruling is narrow in three ways:

• It answers one threshold question. The Court did not decide whether Ellingburg's restitution order actually violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. It sent the case back to the Eighth Circuit, which "may consider the Government's separate arguments for affirmance."
• It is about the MVRA. The Court said its ruling "does not mean that a restitution statute can never be civil." Other restitution statutes are not automatically covered.
• It does not change how restitution is calculated or collected. Questions about the amount, payment schedules and how long the debt lasts are governed by other parts of the law.

Who it affects

The decision matters most to people whose restitution was ordered under a law that took effect after their offense. Those questions are case-specific, and on remand the government's other arguments remain open.

For how federal restitution works in general, including how long it lasts and how the amount can be challenged, see our guide to federal restitution orders. For a different limit on restitution, see our note on Lagos v. United States, which held that MVRA restitution does not cover a victim's private investigation costs.