In 1910, the White Slave Traffic Act (usually known as the Mann Act) went into effect. Congress passed the act in response to an alleged white slave traffic in which gangs of certain nationalities were said to be forcing or luring American women into prostitution. One portion of the act stated that “any person who shall knowingly transport or cause to be transported . . . any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, . . . shall be deemed guilty of a felony.” In 1913, F. Drew Caminetti was indicted for transporting a woman from Sacramento, California, to Reno, Nevada, to be his mistress. Which technique of statutory interpretation would you use in arguing that Caminetti is guilty under the Mann Act? Which technique would you use to argue that Caminetti should not be guilty under the act?
The correct answer and explanation is :
Here’s the correct answer with an explanation:
Correct Answer:
To argue that Caminetti is guilty under the Mann Act, you would use the textualist (or literal) approach to statutory interpretation.
To argue that Caminetti should not be guilty under the Mann Act, you would use the intentionalist (or purposivist) approach.
Explanation (around 300 words):
In supporting Caminetti’s guilt, a textualist approach focuses strictly on the language of the statute. The Mann Act states that transporting a woman for “prostitution, debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose” is a felony. The phrase “any other immoral purpose” is broad and, by its plain meaning, could include transporting a woman to engage in extramarital sexual relations, like becoming a mistress. Under textualism, the exact words matter more than the historical context or legislative intent. Therefore, Caminetti’s actions — transporting a woman across state lines to be his mistress — fall within the literal reading of “any other immoral purpose,” making him guilty.
In arguing that Caminetti should not be guilty, a lawyer would apply the intentionalist or purposivist method, which looks to the purpose Congress had in passing the law. The Mann Act was passed amid a public moral panic over “white slavery” — that is, the forced prostitution and trafficking of women. The core legislative intent was to combat commercialized sexual exploitation, not to criminalize consensual sexual relationships between adults. Thus, while Caminetti’s conduct might have been considered immoral by some, it did not involve coercion, prostitution, or commercial sex work, which were the principal evils the Act was designed to fight. Under intentionalism, because Caminetti’s actions did not align with the underlying purpose of the statute, he should not be found guilty.
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court in Caminetti v. United States (1917) adopted the textualist approach and upheld his conviction, emphasizing the broad language “any other immoral purpose.”