What is the Mann Act? Here's what to know about the law used to convict Sean 'Diddy' Combs
Though he was acquitted of more serious charges, Combs was still convicted of flying people around the country, including his girlfriends and male sex workers, to engage in paid sexual encounters.
Over the years, the law has been applied to prominent convictions, including R&B superstar R. Kelly, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, musician Chuck Berry and more than a century ago, boxer Jack Johnson.
Its broad wording and a subsequent Supreme Court interpretation once allowed prosecutors to bring cases against interracial couples, and eventually many others in consensual relationships, according to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute.
The law was amended in the 1980s and today it is primarily used against interstate prostitution crimes or people accused of taking underage children across state lines for sexual purposes.
Here's what to know about the law.
Why is it called the Mann Act?
In 1910, Congress passed the bill, which was named after Republican U.S. Rep. James Robert Mann of Illinois.
It's also known as the 'White-Slave Traffic Act' of 1910.
How does it apply to Combs' case?
Combs was convicted of counts involving two former girlfriends: the R&B singer Cassie and a woman who testified under the pseudonym Jane.
Both said at trial that Combs had pressured them into degrading sex marathons with strangers, who were paid for the sexual performances. Jane said she was once beaten by Combs for declining to participate. Cassie said that when she tried to walk out of one such event, Combs beat her and dragged her down a hotel hallway.
Combs was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering charges but convicted of transporting people to engage in prostitution.
What's the history behind it?
The 1910 law originally prohibited the interstate or foreign commerce transport of 'any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.' It followed a 1907 congressionally appointed commission to look into the issue of immigrant sex workers, with the view that a girl would only enter prostitution if drugged or held captive, according to Cornell's Legal Information Institute.
The law was used to secure a conviction against Jack Johnson, who became the first Black boxer to become a world heavyweight champion in 1910. Johnson was convicted in 1913 by an all-white jury for traveling with his white girlfriend, who worked as a sex worker, in violation of the Mann Act.
(President Donald Trump posthumously pardoned Johnson in 2018, saying Johnson had served 10 months in prison 'for what many view as a racially-motivated injustice.')
How has the law changed since 1910?
In a 1917 Supreme Court case, the justices ruled that 'illicit fornication,' even when consensual, amounted to an "immoral purpose,' according to Cornell's Legal Information Institute.
A 1986 update made the law gender-neutral and effectively ended the Act's role in trying to legislate morality by changing 'debauchery' and 'immoral purpose' to 'any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.'
Nevertheless, Combs ' legal team last February made a motion to dismiss a Mann Act charge, writing that the law 'has a long and troubling history as a statute with racist origins."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
34 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Tracking Trump: Congress passes the GOP tax bill; Abrego García details his torture; the labor market grew in June; and more
The House passed the GOP tax and immigration bill. Kilmar Abrego García's lawyers described torture their client faced. The labor market grew in June. The Supreme Court will hear cases challenging trans athlete bans. EPA staffers who signed a letter of dissent were placed on leave. ICE detained a former world champion boxer.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court clears the way for Trump administration to deport migrants held in Djibouti
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport a group of migrants with criminal records held at a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, clarifying the scope of its earlier order that lifted restrictions on removals to countries that are not deportees' places of origin. The high court's follow-up ruling came after it paused a federal judge's April injunction that prevented the Trump administration from deporting migrants to so-called third countries without first giving them notice of the destination and a chance to contest their deportation there by raising fears of torture, persecution or death. Soon after that order by the Supreme Court last month, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy said that a decision he issued in May requiring the Trump administration to provide interviews with U.S. asylum officers to the men detained in Djibouti before removing them to South Sudan remained "in full force and effect." Those men — who hail from Latin America and Asia, and have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. — have been held at the Djibouti base for weeks after Murphy ordered the Department of Homeland Security to retain custody of them. The Trump administration has described deplorable and dangerous conditions faced by the personnel sent to guard the men in Djibouti, including concerns about malaria, rocket attacks, inadequate security protocols and triple-digit outdoor temperatures. Murphy issued his order in May after finding that the Trump administration violated his initial injunction when it attempted to swiftly remove the migrants to South Sudan with less than 24 hours' notice and no chance to raise fear-based claims. The world's youngest country, South Sudan remains plagued by violence and political instability, with the State Department warning Americans not to travel there. According to the Justice Department, the State Department has received "credible diplomatic assurances" from South Sudan that the migrants will not be subject to torture. The Supreme Court on Thursday said Murphy's May order "cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable," referring to the April injunction from Murphy that the high court paused last month. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a concurring statement that, while she opposed the Supreme Court's initial pause, "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed." In a dissent that was joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the high court's majority was effectively allowing the Trump administration to pursue "unlawful ends," expressing concern about the safety of the deportees. "What the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death," Sotomayor wrote. The legal fight The Supreme Court's original order last month was a significant legal victory for President Trump and his mass deportation campaign. As part of that effort, administration officials have sought to convince countries around the globe, including in far-flung parts of Africa, to accept deportees who are not their citizens. Several countries — including El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama and Kosovo — have already agreed to host migrants from other nations who have been deported from the U.S. The high court's decision in June was unsigned and did not contain any reasoning, prompting questions as to whether the Trump administration could move to deport the migrants being held in Djibouti to South Sudan, as it was initially trying to do. The three liberal justices — Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented. After Murphy clarified that the Department of Homeland Security could not yet remove the men without first providing them additional process, Solicitor General D. John Sauer sought further word from the justices. Sauer, who represents the government before the court, argued that the justice's decision meant there is no injunction in place barring the deportation of the migrants in Djibouti. Murphy's ruling, he wrote, "is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the executive's lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals." "This court should immediately make clear that the district court's enforcement order has no effect, and put a swift end to the ongoing irreparable harm to the executive branch and its agents, who remain under baseless threat of contempt as they are forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict," Sauer said. Immigration attorneys disagreed and told the Supreme Court in a filing that Murphy's May order "is the only shield that preserves and protects their statutory, regulatory, and due process rights to seek protection from torture in South Sudan." They said that the judge's order requiring the government to retain custody of the eight deportees and provide them reasonable-fear interviews was simply a remedy that was issued to address the Trump administration's violation of his injunction. Plus, the immigration attorneys said that when the Justice Department first sought the Supreme Court's intervention to resume third-country deportations, it did not seek relief from that follow-up order regarding the attempted removals to South Sudan. "Because the district court's remedial order is not before the court, it remains in effect," they argued. "Any other conclusion would reward the government's defiance of the district court's orders." The back-and-forth over the third country removals before the Supreme Court has played out on its emergency docket, where the Trump administration has requested relief while legal proceedings play out. Decisions on those requests are typically made only with written briefing and no oral argument, and the court's decisions often do not include its reasoning or how its members voted. The Trump administration has filed more than a dozen emergency appeals with the Supreme Court, many arising from its efforts to curtail illegal immigration into the U.S. The high court has allowed the government to end two programs protecting nearly 1 million migrants from deportation while the challenges move forward. But it has also said that migrants facing swift deportation under a 1798 law known as the Alien Enemies Act must receive notice and an opportunity to challenge their removals in court.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Tennessee death row inmate makes last-ditch effort to prevent Aug. 5 execution
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Attorneys for a Tennessee death row inmate have launched a last-ditch effort to prevent his Aug. 5 execution. In Nashville's Chancery Court, they are asking a judge to require the Tennessee Department of Correction to deactivate an implanted defibrillation device similar to a pacemaker in the moments before Byron Black's execution. If the judge rules in their favor, such an order could potentially delay the execution until the state finds someone willing to do the deactivation. Meanwhile, at the state Supreme Court level, they want judges to order a lower court to consider their claim that Black is incompetent to be executed. The attorneys also have filed a general challenge to the state's new execution protocol, but with a trial scheduled for 2026, any ruling there will come too late for Black. Black was convicted in the 1988 shooting deaths of girlfriend Angela Clay, 29, and her two daughters, Latoya, 9, and Lakeisha, 6. Prosecutors said Black was in a jealous rage when he shot the three at their home. At the time, Black was on work-release while serving time for shooting and wounding Clay's estranged husband. Black has already seen three execution dates come and go, thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic and a pause on all executions from Gov. Bill Lee after the Department of Correction was found to not be testing the execution drugs for potency and purity as required. Black's attorneys have previously tried and failed to show that he should not be executed because he is intellectually disabled, and that would violate the state's Constitution. In a new twist on the same theme, his attorneys now argue that the court should consider Black's competence to be executed under older English common law standards. The state counters that Black does not meet the criteria for incompetency because he understands his conviction, his pending execution, and the relation between the two. Separately, Black's attorneys are asking a different court to rule that his implanted cardioverter-defibrillator must be deactivated just before the execution. They suggest that otherwise the device will continually try to restart his heart, prolonging the execution and causing Black to suffer unnecessarily. Because most medical professionals are unwilling to participate in executions — considering it a violation of medical ethics — it could potentially be time consuming and difficult to find someone willing to deactivate the device in order to kill Black more easily. A hearing on the motion is set for July 14.
