In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), the Court held that "[o]ther than the fact of a 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." In Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 348, 360 (2012), the Court held "that the rule of Apprendi applies to the imposition of criminal fines." That holding was based largely on how criminal fines were treated historically, under common law. See id. at 353-56. Despite the fact that the historical records with respect to requiring jury findings to support criminal fines and criminal restitution are the same, and that restitution is part of a criminal sentence, the circuit courts have all declined to apply the rule of Apprendi (and Southern Union) to criminal restitution. Should the rule of Apprendi apply to the imposition of criminal restitution?

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