Coulter v. United States: Affirmation of But-For Causation and Discretionary Restitution Framework under the TVPRA

Introduction

In United States v. Coulter, No. 24-6026 (10th Cir. Apr. 15, 2025), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed two central issues under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA): (1) whether the government must show that a defendant’s conduct was the “but-for” cause of a victim’s losses to award restitution, and (2) the proper scope and duration of restitution awards for future psychological and psychiatric treatment.

Germaine Coulter, Sr. (“Coulter”) was convicted of conspiracy to commit child sex trafficking and child sex trafficking of two minor victims (Doe 1 and Doe 2) and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. After his direct appeal failed, the government sought over $2 million in restitution covering both victims’ lifetime therapy, psychiatric care, medication, lost earnings, and a statutory special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA). Coulter challenged the restitution order on two grounds: that the government had not shown “but-for” causation and that the award amount—particularly ten years of therapy and treatment—was unsupported by the evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s restitution order in full. It held that:

• The government satisfied its burden to show Coulter was a “but-for” and proximate cause of the victims’ psychological injuries, even though both victims had suffered prior traumas predating the trafficking.
• The district court did not abuse its discretion in capping future therapy, psychiatric treatment, and medication at ten years—rather than the experts’ lifetime projection—because a lifetime award would have been overly speculative.
• No restitution was awarded for lost earnings or certain pre-existing conditions (e.g., ADHD tutoring) beyond the scope of Coulter’s wrongdoing.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The panel relied principally on two prior Tenth Circuit decisions interpreting the TVPRA’s restitution provisions:

• United States v. Anthony, 942 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2019) (“Anthony I”) and 22 F.4th 943 (10th Cir. 2022) (“Anthony II”). These decisions confirmed that (a) a defendant must be shown to be the “but-for” and proximate cause of a victim’s losses, and (b) restitution must be based on actual losses proven by a preponderance of evidence, though the amount need not be calculated with mathematical precision.
• United States v. Quarrell, 310 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 2002). Quarrell underscored that restitution orders must be limited to losses “actually resulting” from the offense of conviction.

By reaffirming Anthony I and II, the court emphasized that restitution under the TVPRA cannot be awarded for harms predating or independent of the defendant’s criminal conduct, unless an expert clearly ties those harms to the defendant’s actions.

2. Legal Reasoning

The appellate court’s reasoning proceeded in two steps:

1. But-For Causation: The Court held that Dr. Missar’s expert testimony established the requisite causal nexus between Coulter’s trafficking and the victims’ post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and dysthymia, and other trauma-related symptoms. Cross-examination confirmed that, although both Doe 1 and Doe 2 had earlier traumatic events, their specific symptom profiles and treatment needs were “directly linked” to Coulter’s criminal conduct. The panel distinguished this case from Anthony II, where multiple traffickers complicated the causation analysis.
2. Duration and Scope of Restitution: Under 18 U.S.C. § 2259(c)(2), a district court may order restitution for future costs “reasonably projected to be incurred” by the victim. Although Dr. Missar recommended a lifetime of therapy and medication, the district judge deemed a lifetime award “overly speculative” and instead limited future care to ten years—matching the expert’s projection for group therapy duration—while preserving the two years of intensive individual therapy and psychiatric treatment that the expert recommended. The appellate court found this a reasonable exercise of discretion.

3. Impact on Future Cases

United States v. Coulter clarifies several important points for TVPRA restitution practice:

• District courts may credit expert testimony tying trauma symptoms to a defendant’s conduct, even when victims have pre-existing sources of trauma, so long as the link is explicit and the harms are “but-for” caused by the offense.
• Experts need not parse every past abuse contribution; the government need only show that the defendant’s crime directly produced the uncompensated losses at issue.
• Courts have discretion to limit restitution for future care to a reasonable timeframe. Experts’ lifetime projections are not binding if the court finds them overly speculative.
• The decision reinforces the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for restitution amounts, allowing room for judgment calls when calculating future losses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

But-For Causation: The victim must show that “but for” the defendant’s wrongful act, the victim would not have suffered the loss. To meet this test, an expert can explain how the crime caused specific symptoms requiring treatment, even if the victim had unrelated traumas before.

Proximate Cause: The harm must flow in a natural way from the crime. If an expert connects the harm directly to the defendant’s acts, that suffices to meet proximate causation.

Reasonably Projected Future Costs: Courts can order restitution for anticipated expenses—like therapy and medication—if they are supported by evidence. Courts do not need to award the maximum recommended by experts; they may limit awards to a reasonable period where experts’ lifetime estimates are uncertain.

Conclusion

United States v. Coulter cements a balanced framework for TVPRA restitution: enforcing a strict but-for causation requirement while preserving district courts’ discretion to tailor future-care awards to reasonable, evidence-based timelines. The decision will guide practitioners and judges in crafting restitution orders that compensate trafficking victims fully for harms caused by the convicted defendant, without straying into speculative or unrelated losses.