Key takeaways
- Restitution as Criminal Punishment: The Court ruled that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 is considered criminal punishment, not a civil remedy, impacting cases like Holsey Ellingburg Jr.’s.
- Historical Precedent: Justice Clarence Thomas advocates returning to the 1798 Calder v. Bull approach for Ex Post Facto Clauses, criticizing the modern multifactor test as convoluted and overly reliant on legislative labeling.
- Next Steps: The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its ruling, signaling potential future shifts in how Ex Post Facto protections are applied.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in an opinion on Tuesday that the Court should restore a precedent set in a 1798 case.
The Court unanimously decided on Tuesday to reverse a lower court’s ruling in a case involving a challenge to court-ordered restitution. The petitioner, Holsey Ellingburg, Jr., was sentenced in 1996 and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $7,567.25. Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, defendants convicted of certain federal crimes must pay monetary restitution to the victims.
Ellingburg filed a challenge to the restitution under the Ex Post Facto Clause because he committed the crime he was convicted of before the law was enacted. The challenge hinges on whether the law imposes a criminal punishment, rather than a civil remedy.
The Court ruled that restitution ordered under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 constitutes criminal punishment.
In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Thomas said he joined the Court majority’s opinion in full, but he said he would restore the approach taken to Ex Post Facto Clauses established in Calder v. Bull in a future case. He said the multifactor test currently used by the Court to define criminal punishment “turns largely on legislative labeling, has little basis in history, and is unnecessarily convoluted.”
Why It Matters
The 1978 Calder v. Bull case arose out of probate proceedings for the estate of a Connecticut man named Normand Morison. Morrison’s wife and her new husband petitioned the state legislature for relief after a probate court overturned Morrison’s will. In the absence of a will, Morrison’s estate would be inherited by the Calders, who were blood relatives.
The legislature granted a new hearing by the probate court, which concluded that Morrison’s original will was valid. The Calders appealed the decision, arguing that the legislature’s decree was an unconstitutional ex post facto law because it retroactively voided the probate court’s original decision and caused them to lose an inheritance that would have been theirs under the law.
The Court ruled that the legislature’s decree granting a new trial did not violate the state’s Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court reasoned that Ex Post Facto Clauses were limited to laws imposing criminal punishment, a precedent that is still recognized today, over 200 years later.
What To Know
The Court ruled that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act “makes abundantly clear that restitution is criminal punishment.”
Thomas said that a multifactor test developed in the 20th century asks the Court to consider whether the legislature “intended” the law to be viewed as criminal. Another test, which applies only if the law survives the first test, asks the Court to consider whether the law’s other features render it criminal.
“This modern framework is incongruous with the historical purpose of Ex Post Facto Clauses. The modern framework, because of how much it turns on legislative labeling and semantics, allows a legislature to manipulate when the protection will apply,” Thomas wrote.
He said the Court’s current precedents concerning the scope of laws imposing criminal punishment have departed from the understanding established by Calder.
“In a future case, the Court should consider returning to Calder’s understanding,” Thomas wrote.
What People Are Saying
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, delivering the Court’s majority opinion: “Here, the statutory analysis is straightforward: Restitution under the MVRA is plainly criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion: “The modern framework is also convoluted. It is difficult for courts, let alone ordinary citizens, to predict how this Court will weigh the modern framework’s combined twelve factors spread over two tests.”
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact [email protected].