Whether the Sixth Amendment reserves to juries the determination of any fact underlying a criminal restitution order

QUESTION PRESENTED Applying the longstanding Apprendi rule, this Court in Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012), held that the Sixth Amendment reserves to juries the determination of any fact underlying a criminal fine. The Court reasoned that “{cJriminal fines, like other forms of punishment, are penalties inflicted by the sovereign for the commission of offenses,” and the allowable amount of a fine “is often calculated by reference to particular facts.” Id. at 349. As two Members of this Court have recognized, “it would seem to follow that a jury must find any facts necessary to support a (nonzero) restitution order,” and a lower court ruling to the contrary “is worthy of [the Court’s] review.” Hester v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 509, 510 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., joined by Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit below held that petitioner must pay tens of thousands of dollars in a criminal restitution penalty, based on facts the jury never found. The question presented is: Whether the Sixth Amendment reserves to juries the determination of any fact underlying a criminal restitution order.