Should Apprendi's rule apply to the imposition of criminal restitution?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW. In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), the Court held that “To]ther than the fact of prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Court later held in Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343, 360 (2012), that “the rule of Apprendi applies to the imposition of criminal fines.” That holding resulted largely from how courts historically, under the common law, treated criminal fines. See id. at 353-56. But notwithstanding that historical records requiring jury findings to support criminal fines and criminal restitution are the same, and that restitution is part of a criminal sentence, the federal courts of appeals have declined to apply Apprendi’s and Southern Union Co.’s rule to criminal restitution. The question presented is as follows: Should Apprendi’s rule apply to the imposition of criminal restitution? i