Dolan v. United States
The Court ruled that a sentencing judge who blows past the 90-day deadline for pinning down a crime victim's restitution amount can still order restitution later, at least when the judge made clear before the deadline that restitution was coming and only the dollar amount was left open.
The decision means victims won't lose their right to compensation just because a court was slow to do the paperwork, though the dissent warned this lets judges tinker with sentences long after the fact.
“We hold that a sentencing court that misses the 90-day deadline nonetheless retains the power to order restitution”
The Court's core holding on the consequence of missing the restitution deadline.
How it got here: A federal district court ordered restitution after the 90-day deadline; the Tenth Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court took the case due to a circuit split.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Brian Dolan pleaded guilty to assaulting someone and causing serious injury. At his sentencing, the judge knew restitution to the victim was required but didn't yet know the exact dollar amount owed for medical costs and lost wages, so the judge left that number open to be decided later, after receiving more information from probation officials.
The question before the Court
If a judge misses the 90-day deadline for setting the exact restitution amount, does the crime victim lose the right to any restitution at all?
The Court's answer
No — missing the 90-day deadline does not erase a crime victim's right to restitution, at least where, as here, the judge made clear before the deadline expired that restitution would be ordered and only the exact dollar amount remained open. The Court held this kind of deadline is a time-related directive, not an absolute cutoff on the judge's power.
The Court reasoned that Congress wrote the restitution law mainly to protect victims, and punishing a paperwork delay by canceling their compensation would undercut that goal while doing little for the defendant, who already knew restitution was coming. A defendant worried about delay can ask the court for a prompt hearing or, in rare cases, seek a court order compelling one.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Crime victims awaiting restitution won't be shut out of compensation just because a court missed a paperwork deadline through no fault of the victim. But defendants get less certainty about when their sentence is truly final, and the ruling gives judges more room to finish incomplete sentences well after the original hearing.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision, not a temporary order. The Tenth Circuit's ruling upholding the restitution order stands, and Dolan must pay the roughly $105,000 restitution amount the district court set. Going forward, sentencing courts that miss the 90-day restitution deadline may still finalize restitution amounts later, at least when they clearly signaled before the deadline that restitution would be ordered.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly left open whether a sentencing judgment becomes appealable before the restitution amount is set, whether courts can similarly reopen other parts of a sentence like a fine or supervised-release condition, and how bad-faith delay by a defendant or the government might affect the analysis in a future case.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Roberts
Chief Justice Roberts argued that sentences are final once imposed and that the 90-day provision is a narrow, self-executing exception allowing delayed restitution only within that window; once the window closes, the court's limited authority disappears and the ordinary rule of finality reasserts itself. He would have held the district court had no power to add restitution 269 days after sentencing, and warned the majority's reasoning lets judges revise fines, prison terms, or supervised-release conditions indefinitely.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court framed the question as what happens when a statute sets a deadline but doesn't say what happens if a court misses it, and it looked at whether Congress meant the deadline to be jurisdictional (an absolute limit on the court's power), a claims-processing rule (which a party can forfeit by not raising it), or a time-related directive that stays enforceable but doesn't strip the court of power to act late.
- The Court found this deadline fits the third category, because the statute doesn't say what should happen if the 90 days pass, and courts generally won't invent a punishment like forfeiting the court's power when Congress didn't write one in.
- The Court reasoned that the restitution law's whole point is to make sure crime victims are paid in full, and reading a missed deadline as canceling that right would hurt victims who had nothing to do with the court's delay.
- Comparing this case to an earlier ruling on missed bail-hearing deadlines, the Court concluded that just as a missed deadline there didn't force a defendant's release, a missed restitution deadline here doesn't erase the victim's right to be paid.
- The Court added that a defendant who already knows restitution is coming and roughly how much can ask the court for a prompt hearing, so the risk of unfair delay falls mainly on someone who failed to speak up.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Montalvo-Murillo (495 U. S. 711)
The Court relied on this bail-hearing deadline case to support letting courts act after a missed deadline.