restitution

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is a criminal punishment, which would implicate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution upon retroactive application, or a civil remedy. Petitioner Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. was convicted of bank robbery and firearm use during a violent crime in August 1996 and sentenced under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, which capped restitution enforcement at twenty years after entry of judgment. However, Congress enacted the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act in April 1996 to extend the restitution enforcement period to twenty years after a defendant’s release from prison. Ellingburg argues that, in designing the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, Congress made a criminal punishment, so retroactively applying it to increase his penalty would violate the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. Court-appointed attorney John F. Bash, invited to support the judgment below, argues that Congress did not clearly design the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act as a criminal punishment, so it is a civil remedy that does not implicate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The outcome of this case will have a major impact on the fairness of the restitution process for both criminal defendants and victims of crimes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide if the Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act requires or permits an order of restitution against a criminal defendant for a private party’s costs of investigating the underlying crime without a request from the government. Lagos argues that the text of the statute and its legislative context and history preclude such costs from being eligible for restitution. In contrast, the Government argues that the overarching goal of restitution pairs with the text of the statute to permit a broad definition of eligible expenses, including private investigations. Underlying these legal issues is a delicate balance of rights, with the Government supporting restitution in order to help victims recover from crime, and opponents worrying that large restitution awards would prevent defendants from achieving full rehabilitation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Doyle Paroline was convicted of possessing 150 to 300 images of minors being sexually abused, including two images of Respondent “Amy” being abused by her uncle at the age of eight or nine years old. The Supreme Court will settle a circuit split over the required causal relationship between a defendant’s possession and a victim’s harm in order for the victim to recover full restitution under 18 U.S.C § 2259. Paroline argues that a victim’s damages must be proximately caused by the defendant’s conduct because any other result would turn child exploitation restitution proceedings into a procedural nightmare. Amy argues that § 2259 does not require proximate causation for a victim to be entitled to full damages; otherwise, the victims of child abuse would bear the burden of collecting tiny shares of restitution from several defendants and might never receive full recovery. The Court’s ruling will impact the rights of exploited children and the procedural rights afforded to those charged with possessing child pornography.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

Benjamin Robers pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud for his role as a straw man in a mortgage fraud scheme.  Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, Robers was ordered to pay restitution to the lenders he defrauded. The amount owed was determined based on the amount the lenders lost minus the amount they received when the homes were resold. Robers argues that the statute offsets damages based on the remaining value due after the lenders received part of the property they lost, which he argues is when the lenders took title to the foreclosed homes. The government counters that the property lost, for which restitution is owed, is the cash the lenders lost because of Robers’s fraudulent actions. Thus, restitution should be determined based on the amount of cash the lender recovers after selling the home. The Supreme Court’s resolution of this case will settle whether the property is returned and restitution set when the lender takes over the title at foreclosure or when the lender receives cash at resale. This case will address the consequences for criminals convicted of fraud who are required to pay restitution and the amount they are responsible for paying.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by