Supreme Court rulings on the Mann Act

Wikipedia lists the following Supreme Court decisions which were related to the Mann Act and clarified what was and what was not - constitutionally - covered under the law. The law made it a felony to engage in interstate commerce of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose". But there's ambiguity in the terminology here that led to court challenges.

The biggest issue seems to be defining what an "immoral purpose" is. Note that the first case deals with the general question of whether the powers claimed by the act falls within constitutional parameters.

These cases led to that clarification:

- Hoke v. United States, (1913). The Court held that Congress could not regulate prostitution per se, as that was strictly the province of the states. Congress could, however, regulate interstate travel for purposes of prostitution or "immoral purposes".

- Athanasaw v. United States, (1913). The Court decided that the law was not limited strictly to prostitution, but to "debauchery" as well.

- Caminetti v. United States, (1917). The Court decided that the Mann Act applied not strictly to purposes of prostitution, but to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons. Thus consensual extramarital sex falls within the genre of "immoral sex".

- Gebardi v. United States, (1932). The Court held that the statutory intent was not to punish a woman's acquiescence; therefore, consent by the woman does not expose her to liability.

- Cleveland v. United States, (1946). The Court decided that a person can be prosecuted under the Mann Act even when married to the woman if the marriage is polygamous. Thus polygamous marriage was determined to be an "immoral purpose".

- Bell v. United States, (1955). The Supreme Court decided that simultaneous transportation of two women across state lines constituted only one violation of the Mann Act, not two violations.

This day in History - Congress passes the White-Slave Traffic Act - aka - the Mann Act

The year was 1910 and it marks the entry of the national government into the enforcement of morality laws - most prostitution. It also reflects the nature of attitudes about race at that moment.

I mention this law in sections that cover the increasing power of the national government in areas that had previously been reserved solely to the states. Given that prostitution is a commercial act that can involve commerce over state lines - the national government can claim a constitutional right to lass laws related to it. It's focus also on "immoral purposes" made it a flexible law that could be used for whatever purpose authorities wished.

For some links:

- History.com: Congress passes Mann Act.
- Wikipedia: the Mann Act.
- NPR: The Long, Colorful History of the Mann Act.

Cities in the United States had a large number of brothels up until this time. The passage of the bill was helped by a sudden moral panic that swept the nation that was wrapped up in attitudes about immigrants, the proper social order and the causes of prostitution.

One of the people trapped in the enforcement of the law was Galveston native Jack Johnson who flaunted conventional attitudes about race.

A District Court Judge Finds the Individual Mandate Constitutional

Here's huge -- and relevant -- news. A district court judge has ruled that the individual mandate in the recently passed health care law does fall under the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Pay attention 2301s:

From Ezra Klein:

A district court judge has ruled the individual mandate is constitutional, reports N.C. Aizenman: "Other federal courts have already dismissed some challenges to the law on technical grounds - ruling, for instance, that the plaintiffs lacked standing. However, the decision issued Thursday by Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan is the first to reject a claim based on the merits, marking a notable victory for the Obama administration...Steeh found that 'far from 'inactivity,' by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health-care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars...onto other market participants.'"

- Here's the opinion...

...and a key quote from it:

“In assessing the scope of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause,” the court’s task “is a modest one.” The court need not itself determine whether the regulated activities, “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a ‘rational basis’ exists for so concluding.”



There is a rational basis to conclude that, in the aggregate, decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision.

- From the NYT.
- Here's a decision from a previous case where the law was dismissed on procedural grounds.

Now it will go on to higher level appelate courts further consideration. Pay attention 2302s!