Hester v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 509

Petitioners (Joshua John Hester et al.) were convicted of financial crimes and the district court held a hearing to determine victims’ losses, ordering $329,767 in restitution based on the court’s factual findings.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that a judge — not a jury — may find the facts supporting a restitution award.
Petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court challenged whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find facts that support a restitution order.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari; Justice Alito concurred in the denial and questioned extending Apprendi/Booker jurisprudence; Justice Gorsuch (joined by Justice Sotomayor) dissented from the denial and would have granted review.
The dissent emphasized restitution’s growing importance in federal sentencing, argued restitution functions as part of criminal punishment, and traced historical/common-law support for jury factfinding on restitution amounts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find facts supporting a restitution award	Hester: jury must find victim-loss facts because restitution is part of criminal punishment and Apprendi/Blakely require jury findings for facts that increase punishment	U.S.: restitution is tied to victim loss (no "statutory maximum") and functions as a compensatory/civil remedy, so Sixth Amendment jury requirement does not apply	Certiorari denied; Ninth Circuit’s judgment allowing judge-found restitution stands (no Supreme Court review)

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held guideline-based sentence increases implicate Sixth Amendment jury rights)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be found by jury)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (discussed sentencing standard and appellate review; Justice Alito skepticism noted)
Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012) (Sixth Amendment jury right applies to fines and historically grounded jury role)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (statutory maximum concept and role of jury findings in sentencing)
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (treats restitution within the criminal sentencing context)
Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005) (characterizes certain restitution-related measures as part of criminal sentence)