Ellingburg v. United States (24-482)

argument 24-482

Ellingburg v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 4m 8 speakers 7 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the case Ellingburg v. United States about?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument next this morning in case twenty four four four four four four four eighty two. Ellingburg versus United States. Ms. Sahariya?

Unknown 0:12

Mr Chief Justice, I may it please the court.

How does the MVRA define restitution as a criminal punishment?

Unknown 0:15

The MVRA classifies restitution as criminal punishment and is thus subject to the ex post facto clause. Just like imprisonment and fines, restitution is part of an offender's criminal sentence imposed at the end of a criminal proceeding as a consequence of conviction. The sentence is the punishment for the crime. Other features of the MVRA confirm this conclusion. Restitution is intertwined with other punishments and can be the only punishment for misdemeanors. Like fines, restitution is enforced with the threat of summary imprisonment. And the federal rules of criminal procedure and the chapters of Title eighteen that govern sentencing apply. All of this is why, in a trio of cases, Periline, Pasquantino and Kelly

Unknown 1:03

This court called restitution a criminal punishment that serves punitive and penalical purposes.

Why is the Ex Post Facto Clause relevant in this dispute?

Unknown 1:10

and a criminal sanction that furthers the government's interests in rehabilitation and punishment.

What arguments are presented about victim compensation versus punitive purpose?

Unknown 1:17

Amicus responds that victim compensation is the primary purpose of restitution. But that purpose based analysis overlooks the threshold classification question Does the statute on its face impose criminal punishment? The answer here is yes. Criminal punishments may serve multiple purposes at the same time. Imprisonment punishes but also protects the public. The same is true of restitution. It punishes the offender and if the offender pays compensates the victim. Finally, this case presents the question presented. The MBRA is the law being applied to petitioner retroactively. The district court that uh denied the show cause motion applied the MBRA and the Eighth Circuit then affirmed on the ground that the MBRA imposes a civil remedy.

Unknown 2:07

The petition challenges that case dispositive holding. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:13

Um Aren't we going to have to wrestle with the fact that Uh petitioner was not originally sentenced under the MBRA?

Unknown 2:24

Uh we don't think you the court needs to wrestle with that fact and I'll start by saying it's not clear what uh statute the original sentencing a court court applied thirty years ago. All we have is a judgment form. The judgment form simply imposes an amount of restitution. And uh the there is one portion of the judgment form that at uh pet app twenty seven A that cites to section three six six three in one paragraph, but the checks check box in front of that paragraph is not checked. So there's nothing in the judgment form that indicates that whether the district court that sentenced Mr Ellingberg applied the VWPA or the MBRA. Now under the rationale of the decision below of the eighth circuit. The MBRA was the statute that governed the restitution order imposed at sentencing.

Unknown 3:19

because the Eighth Circuit held uh at the urging of the government in this case that the MBRA imposes only a civil remedy. As a result, under the effective date provision of the MBRA, it was in effect at the time of the sentencing, and it applied because there was no constitutional barrier to its application. That is the rationale that the government argued to the Eighth Circuit below. The Eighth Circuit accepted that argument. The government continued to argue that in its brief in opposition to our cert petition at page three, where it again said that the MVRA was the statute that governed this restitution order.

Ketanji Brown Jackson 3:59

And isn't your key point that regardless, regardless of what happened thirty years ago, today Your client is being held to the responsibilities of the MDRA. So you know You still I would think have an ex post facto argument because no one disputes that the MVRA was not in existence at the time he committed the crime.

Unknown 4:26

Correct. We all agree that the statute that is being applied retroactively is VMware A. Correct. Uh we couldn't make an argument that the VWPA was applied retroactively. That was in effect at the time of the offense in this case.

Ketanji Brown Jackson 4:39

And of course you would win if you did because then he couldn't be held to the very provision that you were trying to get nullified.