Editing Mann Act (section)

===Mann Act case decisions by the United States Supreme Court===
* ''[[Hoke v. United States]]'', {{ussc|227|308|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]]'', {{ussc|227|326|1913}}. The Court decided that the law was not limited strictly to prostitution, but to "debauchery" as well.<ref>[[:wikisource:Louis Athanasaw v. United States]]</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/227/326.html |title=Athanasaw v. United States |website=Findlaw}}</ref>
* {{cite court | litigants=Holte v. United States | vol=236 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=14 | date=1915 | url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/236/140.html | postscript=none}} In a 1915 ruling, the Court determined that it is not impossible for a victim of the Act to be charged with conspiracy under specific circumstances. The requirements for conspiracy by a victim of the Act were limited in a 1932 ruling.{{cite court | litigants=Gebardi v. United States | vol=287 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=112 | date=1932 | url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/287/112 | postscript=none}}
* ''[[Caminetti v. United States]]'', {{ussc|242|470|1917}}. In 1917, the Court decided that the Mann Act did not apply strictly to purposes of prostitution, but to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons; thus consensual extramarital sex fell within the category of "immoral sex".
*  {{cite court | litigants=Gebardi v. United States | vol=287 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=112 | date=1932 | url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/287/112 | postscript=none}} In 1932, the Court ruled that consent by the victim to their own transportation does not constitute conspiracy or culpability under the Act.
* ''[[Cleveland v. United States (1946)|Cleveland v. United States]]'', {{ussc|329|14|1946}}. The Court decided that a man can be prosecuted under the Mann Act even when married to the woman if the marriage is polygamous; therefore, in 1946, polygamous marriage was determined to be an "immoral purpose".
* ''[[Bell v. United States]]'', {{ussc|349|81|1955}}. The Court decided that simultaneous transportation of two women across state lines constituted only one violation of the Mann Act, not two violations.
* {{cite court | litigants=Wyatt v. United States | vol=362 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=525 | date=1960 | url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/362/525.html | postscript=none}} The Court affirmed that a victim can be compelled to testify against a spouse who violated the Act, in exception to the common law spousal privilege rule.