The Mann Act: A Century-Old Law in a Modern-Day Trial
The summer trial of music icon Sean Combs concluded with a visibly emotional mogul narrowly escaping a life sentence. However, his legal battles were far from over. While acquitted of the most serious accusations, including forced sex trafficking of his girlfriends and running a racketeering conspiracy, the jury did find him guilty on two lesser counts. These charges were connected to the elaborate voyeuristic sex events central to the case.
These convictions stem from the federal Mann Act, a century-old law that criminalizes transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution. What was initially a minor aspect of a case involving severe criminal statutes has now become the primary focus of the ongoing legal dispute over Combs’s future, as his October 3rd sentencing date approaches.
Prosecutors view the Mann Act as their final chance to secure substantial prison time for Combs, whom they consistently depicted not as a casual client of prostitutes, but rather as a violent abuser of women who meticulously orchestrated these sexual activities.
Conversely, Combs’s defense team argues that these convictions, under a law originally known as the White Slave Traffic Act, represent the remnants of an overzealous prosecution that attempted to criminalize what they describe as consensual, albeit unconventional, sexual activity. “Once you accept the verdict,” stated Alexandra Shapiro, one of Combs’s lawyers, in a recent interview, “what remains is consensual sexual activity between adults fully capable of making their own decisions.”
A century after its inception, a world away from the urban brothels that initially inspired it, Combs was found guilty of arranging for men—frequently through high-end online escort services—to travel nationwide. Their purpose was to engage in sexual acts in luxury hotel suites with, at various times, two of the mogul’s girlfriends. The women testified that they felt manipulated, unable to refuse these repeated encounters, often referred to as “freak-offs” and “hotel nights.” They cited a pattern of physical abuse or Combs’s significant financial influence as factors limiting their ability to say no.
Sean Combs was acquitted of the most serious charges at trial this summer. However, he still faces a potentially significant prison term when he is sentenced next month on prostitution-related charges.
The Legal Battle: Defense vs. Prosecution
Because the jury did not find that the women had been forced or coerced, Combs now faces a potential prison sentence of years, rather than life. His lawyers have characterized his lifestyle as a “swingers lifestyle.”
Prosecutors, however, paint a much darker picture of his conduct. They emphasize the sheer frequency of these “freak-offs,” the rampant drug use involved, and compelling accounts of violence against the women. Their argument is that Combs was far from the low-level “john” the defense attempts to portray; instead, he orchestrated hundreds of prostitution-related transports over decades. “Far from being an ordinary and casual consumer of commercial sex,” prosecutors asserted in a post-verdict court filing, “the defendant transported individuals for the purpose of prostitution on hundreds of occasions over the course of decades.”
A Controversial History: The Mann Act’s Evolution
The Mann Act itself boasts a long and often contentious history. Originating in an era of moral panic, it became the legal foundation for numerous high-profile sex scandals. Over time, amendments and shifts in legal practice transformed it into a modern enforcement tool, notably playing a role in several #MeToo-era prosecutions.
Initially, the law, introduced by Representative James R. Mann of Illinois, emerged from xenophobic and racist fears surrounding “white slavery.” It also addressed Progressive-era anxieties about young women in cities being lured into prostitution, according to Jessica Pliley, author of “Policing Sexuality: The Mann Act and the Making of the FBI.” A prominent Chicago red-light district was a major concern for reformers and officials at the time.
The Mann Act’s power partly lay in its broad and vague wording. It outlawed not only transporting women or girls for prostitution but also for “debauchery” or “any other immoral purpose.” This led to extensive FBI investigations into interstate prostitution and various other forms of sexual conduct.
Federal agents, driven by citizens reporting what they considered immoral behavior, extended their focus beyond sexual abuse of women and girls to include adultery, bigamy, and interracial relationships. “When you look at the enforcement of the Mann Act, it provides a lens for revealing what the sexual, gender, racialized preoccupations are of the given moment,” Professor Pliley explained.
One of the most notorious Mann Act cases involved Jack Johnson, the first Black heavyweight boxing champion. In 1913, he was convicted of transporting a white woman, his lover and a prostitute, across state lines. Many considered this a racially motivated prosecution; Johnson received a posthumous pardon from President Trump in 2018.
High-Profile Cases Throughout History
Charlie Chaplin at his Mann Act trial in 1944.
The law also served as the basis for other sensational cases. Charlie Chaplin, already under FBI scrutiny for suspected communist sympathies, faced trial in 1944. He was accused of transporting an aspiring actress by train to New York for “immoral purposes.” Chaplin was acquitted after testifying that he and the actress had only engaged in small talk at the Waldorf Astoria, the supposed crime scene, according to a book detailing the case.
Jack Johnson, the boxer.
Chuck Berry, the musician.
In the 1960s, musician Chuck Berry spent 20 months in prison following his conviction for transporting a 14-year-old girl, whom he met on tour, with the intent to induce her into “immoral practices.”
The broad “immorality” clause was removed by Congress in a 1986 amendment, replaced with “any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” This new wording still allowed for the prosecution of a wide range of sexual offenses. Over time, the government’s application of the law shifted towards the types of cases more commonly seen today: trafficking and sex crimes against minors.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, passed in 2000 and now considered the primary federal sex trafficking law, further refined the use of the Mann Act. “To charge someone with the Mann Act today is not at all the same as having done so in the early 20th century,” noted Mary Graw Leary, a former federal prosecutor and human trafficking scholar. “We live in a different world.”
The Mann Act in Modern Prosecutions
Legal experts explain that prosecutors frequently use Mann Act charges in conjunction with more severe sex trafficking laws. This strategy is because Mann Act violations are considerably easier to prove, serving as a fallback in complex cases. The Combs case perfectly illustrates the effectiveness of this approach for prosecutors, one of whom informed the jury during the trial that they could still convict under the Mann Act “even if all the participants enthusiastically consented.”
Mann Act charges are often foundational elements for prosecutors constructing intricate cases with broad narratives of criminal behavior, as evidenced in the federal prosecutions of R. Kelly and Ghislaine Maxwell.
The Mann Act charges were part of a wider federal case against the singer R. Kelly that went to trial in 2021.
Mann Act charges were part of the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, the longtime companion of Jeffrey Epstein who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for sexually exploiting and abusing teenage girls.
“It is not typically the star of the show, except for in unique circumstances,” said Margaret Gandy, a former federal prosecutor, “but it is an important tool toward building the narrative of the operation of sex trafficking or racketeering.”
Combs’s Defense: A ‘Lowest Possible End’ Case
Before his trial, Combs’s legal team highlighted the law’s controversial past, referencing cases like Jack Johnson’s as evidence that the Mann Act has historically been used to target “Black male sexuality.” They also pointed out the absence of charges against Eliot Spitzer, who resigned as New York governor after being investigated for potential Mann Act violations related to a high-priced prostitution ring.
Judge Arun Subramanian, presiding over the Combs case, dismissed arguments of racial bias in the prosecution. He noted that “whatever the troubling history” of the Mann Act, its “present-day enforcement appears on its face race-neutral in this district, reaching across race and gender.”
Following the eight-week trial in July, Combs’s lawyers filed several documents arguing that the details of his case were an unusual exception in modern Mann Act prosecutions and should never have been brought under the statute. The defense began an effort to persuade the judge that the alleged conduct was far less severe than most, contrasting it with Mann Act defendants who profited from commercial sex operations, exploited minors, or transported vulnerable victims like undocumented immigrants. “Our view is that his case is on the lowest possible end,” Ms. Shapiro stated.
However, prosecutors have depicted the defense’s efforts as an attempt to downplay a serious pattern of behavior revealed during the trial. They reminded the judge of the women’s powerful testimony about their experiences during the “freak-offs”: days of sleeplessness fueled by party drugs, engaging in sex with multiple male escorts, and continuing despite urinary tract infections, injuries, or vomiting. The women also feared that Combs would follow through on threats to release video of the encounters. Prosecutors asserted that Combs “masterminded every aspect of freak-offs.”
The stark difference in how the prosecution and defense view the seriousness of the Mann Act charges reflects their fundamental disagreement on the appropriate consequences for Combs’s conviction.
Sentencing Outlook
Mann Act violations each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. Prosecutors have suggested that Combs should serve over four years in prison, with their formal sentencing recommendation—due next week—potentially being much higher. Conversely, the defense has preemptively requested that Judge Subramanian vacate the jury’s verdict and set their client free before sentencing.