United States of America v. Holsey Ellinburg, Jr.

Kansas City, Missouri, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with bank robbery.

A jury convicted him in August 1996. He was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay $7,567.25 in restitution in November 1996. After his release in 2022, he sued to block the continued enforcement of his restitution order.

He argued that the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause as applied to him because the statute took effect after he committed his crimes but before he was convicted of them.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that MVRA restitution constitutes
criminal punishment under the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Ellingburg v. United
States, 607 U.S. 163, 166 (2026). The Court also dispatched amicus’s argument that
it had improvidently granted Ellingburg’s petition, noting that “the Eighth Circuit
decided this case on the understanding that the MVRA was applied to Ellingburg.”
Id. n.2. The Court then remanded the case with instructions that we “may consider
the Government’s separate arguments for affirmance,” id. at 169, namely, that even
if MVRA restitution is a criminal punishment, applying the law to Ellingburg did
not increase his punishment.

For the foregoing reasons, the 8th Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.
to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion