Show Notes
The Court holds that restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The statute's text and structure — it labels restitution a penalty for an offense, is codified in the criminal code, and is imposed at sentencing alongside imprisonment and fines — make that conclusion plain, even though Congress also intended restitution to compensate victims.
CASE: Ellingburg v. United States AUTHOR: Kavanaugh, J. DECIDED: 2026-01-20 OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/607us1r09_4fb4.pdf
AI DISCLOSURE: The voices in this podcast are AI-generated. The narration is produced by a machine-learning voice synthesis model. Tone, inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be attributed to any individual. The text being read is the majority opinion as published by the Supreme Court of the United States with light adaptations to improve readability.
More from So Ordered
The Court holds that a defendant who absconds while on federal supervised release does not automatically extend the term of that release. The Sentencing Reform Act gives courts many tools to punish a failure to report, but a fugitive-tolling rule that keeps the term running past the date a judge set is not one of them.
The Court holds that a person previously convicted under a law may still sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for purely prospective relief against that law's future enforcement. Heck v. Humphrey does not bar such a suit, because it does not collaterally attack the prior conviction.
The Court holds that New Jersey Transit is not an arm of New Jersey and so cannot claim the State's interstate sovereign immunity when it is sued in another State's courts. New Jersey built it as a legally separate corporation that can sue and be sued and is responsible for its own debts and judgments, and the State's substantial control over it does not change that.
The Court holds that a federal contractor cannot immediately appeal a pretrial order denying it protection under Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co. Yearsley provides a defense to liability on the merits, not an immunity from suit, so an order rejecting it can be fully reviewed on appeal after a final judgment.
The Court holds that a trial judge may bar a testifying criminal defendant's lawyers from discussing his ongoing testimony for its own sake during an overnight recess, so long as the order leaves them free to discuss other protected topics such as trial strategy and a possible plea. Such a qualified conferral order does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.