Summer 2025 CASES AND DATES

In 1996, Holsey Ellingburg, Jr., was sentenced to 322 months imprisonment for bank robbery. The sentencing court also ordered him to pay $7567.25 in restitution. At the time, 18 U.S.C. § 3613 allowed the government to enforce a restitution order for 20 years after the date on which the order was imposed. Under that provision, Ellingburg’s restitution liability would expire in 2016. But shortly after Ellingburg was sentenced, Congress amended § 3613, changing the liability term to 20 years following the date of a person’s release from prison. Under the amended provision, Ellingburg is liable for restitution until 2042.

Ellingburg argues this statutory change violates the U.S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. A statute that changes the penalty for a crime is unconstitutionally ex post facto if the statute is criminal in nature, retroactive, and disadvantages the defendant. The lower court held restitution is “essentially” a civil remedy, and therefore concluded the statutory change here is not ex post facto. The U.S. Supreme Court now takes up the issue.