Missouri man gets Supreme Court reprieve from restitution debt

WASHINGTON (CN) — A Missouri man prevailed at the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a fight against an attempt to collect funds for a restitution obligation that ended in 2016.

Holsey Ellingburg Jr. was sentenced in 1996 to nearly 27 years in prison for robbing a bank one year earlier. As part of his sentence, a judge ordered Ellingburg to pay nearly $8,000 in restitution.

Ellingburg paid $2,154 toward his obligation while incarcerated, believing that his payments would cease in 2016 since his liability period expired under the 1982 Victim and Witness Protection Act.

To his bewilderment, the government continued to withdraw money from his account, claiming Ellingburg still owed thousands of dollars in restitution.

According to the government, the Victim and Witness Protection Act’s restitution liability term of 20 years from entry of judgment was no longer enforceable. Instead, relying on the 1996 Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, the government sought to enforce a liability term extending 20 years after his 2022 release from prison.

Under this interpretation, Ellingburg would be required to continue restitution payments until 2042.

Ellingburg filed a suit against the government in 2023, claiming that enforcement of the MVRA’s extended liability period violated the ex post facto clause, which prohibits retroactively enhancing criminal punishments.

While the government argued the act’s restitution qualified as a civil penalty rather than a criminal punishment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously disagreed.

“Here, the statutory analysis is straightforward: Restitution under the MVRA is plainly criminal punishment for purposes of the ex post facto clause,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Donald Trump appointee, in the court’s opinion.

Kavanaugh noted that the MVRA explicitly labels restitution as a penalty for a criminal offense. Additionally, he wrote, restitution under the act is imposed during sentencing alongside other criminal punishments such as imprisonment and fines.

“Indeed, for misdemeanors, restitution may be ‘in lieu of’ those punishments, making restitution the sole punishment for a federal offense in certain circumstances,” Kavanaugh added.

Additionally, Kavanaugh noted, the MVRA is codified in U.S. Code Title 18, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure” and requires federal courts to follow procedures applicable to other criminal penalties.

“When viewed as a whole, then, the MVRA makes abundantly clear that restitution is criminal punishment,” Kavanaugh wrote. “We are not saying that all of the statutory features present here are necessary to constitute criminal punishment, but they are sufficient.”

The ruling concludes Ellingburg’s yearslong legal battle that sent him down a winding path across the federal court system.

Ellingburg first challenged the terms of his restitution pro se in March 2023, but a federal judge denied his motion in May of that year. He found no luck on appeal as an Eighth Circuit panel affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

With one last hope remaining, Ellingburg petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in October 2024, and the court granted his petition in April 2025, ultimately reversing the appeals court’s ruling on Tuesday.

A representative for Ellingburg could not be immediately reached for comment.

Follow @JacksonHeals