Jeffrey Alvarez v. Arizona

Since this Court decided Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the criminal justice system has struggled with whether a jury must decide the facts needed to order restitution. In Apprendi, this Court ruled that a jury must decide any fact, other than a prior conviction, necessary to expose a defendant to a punishment beyond that authorized by the guilty verdict alone. This rule applies to financial penalties. Restitution fits the bill. In Ellingburg v. U.S., 607 U.S. 163 (2026), this Court held that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act was a criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Arizona’s mandatory restitution scheme carries the same hallmarks as the MVRA. Yet courts have steadfastly refused to empanel juries for restitution based on two core theories. Under the no-punishment theory, restitution is not punishment. Under the no-maximum theory, restitution has no statutory maximum that judicial factfinding can increase. Arizona adopted both. Neither theory can be squared with this Court’s Sixth Amendment decisions or the history of the Sixth Amendment and restitution. This petition squarely asks: Does a defendant have a Sixth Amendment right to a jury for restitution decisions?