bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Protecting Our Nation’s Children in the Technological Age: Arguing For An Interpretation of “Sexual Activity” in 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) That Does Not Require Physical Contact
No full textOur Nation’s justice system values “equal protection under the law.” This represents the belief that all individuals should be treated equally under the law regardless of personal characteristics. Traditionally, we think about this in a context of things like race, gender, or ethnicity. However, this also encompasses the general idea that individuals nationwide should be accountable to and protected by the same laws. As it relates to criminal law, this notion highlights the importance of uniformity in a criminal justice system. Without consistent application and execution, a criminal justice system will never be fair or “equal.”
The federal child enticement statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), criminalizes the coercion or enticement of a minor to engage in “any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” The statute was initially enacted as part of the Mann Act to punish the prostitution of females, but it has since been expanded to target sexual harms against children regardless of gender and to account for the growing risk of online harms stemming from the rise in the Internet, social media, and other technology. Notably, the statute carries a 10-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.
When the statute was enacted, Congress did not provide a definition for the phrase “sexual activity.” As a result, a circuit split is emerging among the federal jurisdictions about how the term “sexual activity” should be properly interpreted. The Seventh Circuit is the only circuit thus far to hold that “sexual activity” as it is used in section 2422(b) requires interpersonal physical activity between individuals. Conversely, the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits held that “sexual activity” does not require interpersonal physical contact between individuals, so sexual crimes that only occur online could constitute an offense.
This Note argues that the proper interpretation of “sexual activity” is the broader definition endorsed by the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits that does not require interpersonal physical contact between individuals. First, this Note argues that this interpretation is more appropriate because it conforms with the traditional canons of statutory interpretation unlike the reasoning underlying the narrow interpretation endorsed by the Seventh Circuit. Second, this Note argues that the broader interpretation is necessary because children have become more vulnerable due to developments in technology and because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Third, this Note argues that by adopting a broader interpretation of “sexual activity,” section 2422(b) can serve as a stronger prosecutorial tool and will help fill in gaps in the justice system left by the federal trafficking statute codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Lastly, this Note addresses potential problems with this interpretation and some solutions to address these
NDLS Communicator: Week of 03.04.24
No full textThe Latest News Notre Dame Law student and Eviction Clinic secure unexpected victory for South Bend family Professor Carter Snead presents at Pontifical Academy for Life assembly at the Vatican Patrick Corrigan\u27s new paper, ES Versus G in Corporate Governance: You Can\u27t Have It All was quoted in the Forbes article, “Observing OpenAI’s Affair With Musk: A Legal Drama Unfolds.” Sherif Girgis\u27s article, Living Traditionalism, was mentioned by the New York Times as support for Justice Barrett\u27s and Judge Newsome\u27s interpretation of history-and-tradition tests. Derek Muller\u27s first quotes about the Supreme Court ruling today are in The Conversation, Supreme Court says only Congress can bar a candidate, like Trump, from the presidency for insurrection − 3 essential reads. Jay Tidmarsh was quoted in an article by Catholic News Agency about how to interpret and predict future court ruling\u27s after the Alabama Supreme Court\u27s decision regarding classifications of frozen embryos. Christian Burset was featured on a New Books Network podcast to discuss his new book, An empire of laws: Legal pluralism in British colonial policy. Fr. Pat Reidy, C.S.C.\u27s new article, Churching NIMBYs: Creating Affordable Housing on Church Property, was just published in the Yale Law Journal and discusses new initiatives by faith communities to build affordable housing on church-owned land. Stephanie Barclay\u27s article, Constitutional Rights as Protected Reasons, is forthcoming in the University of Chicago Law Review. Mary Ellen O\u27Connell guest-edited and contributed to a new issue of Peace Policy, ND\u27s Kroc Institute\u27s publication. Carter Snead was quoted in the National Review article, The Alabama IVF Decision and Dobbs. A recording of Diane Desierto\u27s discussion of Filipina WWII sexual slavery survivors at the Philippines Supreme Court and Committee on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women can be viewed here. Stefan McDaniel spoke on a panel, Theology, Moral Questions, and Worker Justice, at the symposium Revisiting Religion in the Struggle for Workplace Justice at Saint Louis University School of Law. Michael Francus presented at the Northeastern University School of Law Junior Scholars Conference on Death, bankruptcy, and the public hospital. Jeff Pojanowski was a panelist last week on Interpretation and the Administrative State at the American Enterprise Institute. Sam Bray is presenting “All Is Not Well with the Preliminary Injunction” today at the law faculty workshop at the University of Alabama. Sherif Girgis will present during the Harvard Federalist Society Student Symposium on the panel, Constitutions, Elections, and Procedure - (How) Can We Change How We Separate Powers?
Student News Our London Law students recently visited the Hague with visits to key institutes including: TMC Asser Institute, International Criminal Court, Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the International Court of Justice with Mary Ellen O\u27Connell, Michael Addo, and Mary Denyer. The Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School is pleased to announce its annual writing competition on topics and questions within the Program’s focus.
Alumni News ND Law alumnus Kevin Warren \u2790 J.D. presented with two awards over Super Bowl weekend
Events
Monday, March 4 Event with Stephanie Barclay 12:30 p.m., 1140 Eck Hall of Law Law and Economics Workshop: Measuring and Mitigating Racial Disparities in Tax Audits, Jacob Goldin, University of Chicago and U.S. Treasury Department 12:30 p.m., 2130 Eck Hall of Law
Tuesday, March 5 Defending Indiana\u27s First-in-the-Nation Post-Dobbs Abortion Ban as Indiana\u27s Solicitor General 12:30 p.m., 1130 Eck Hall of Law Faculty Colloquium: Brian Murray (Seton Hall) 12:30 p.m., 2130 Eck Hall of Law Movie Screening of 200 Meters by Ameen Nayfeh 7:45 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. in Browning Cinema DPAC
Wednesday, March 6 Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy 12:00 p.m., the Commons Panel Discussion Marking the Anniversary of the Invasion of Ukraine 12:15 p.m., 3140 Eck Hall of Law Religious Liberty Clinic Information Session 12:15 p.m., 1140 Eck Hall of Law Zahir Rahman, AGC at the Las Vegas Raiders 12:00 p.m., 1310 Biolchini Hall
Thursday, March 7 Student Panel on Athletic Legal Externships 12:30 p.m., 1310 Biolchini JET Symposium (Part 1) 12:30 p.m., 1130 Eck Hall of Law Lunch with Professor Velasco 12:30 p.m., 2171 Eck Hall of Law LLF/GRC Lunch 12:30 p.m., 3130 Eck Hall of Law
Friday, March 8 JET Symposium (Part 2) 12:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m., virtual
March 11-15 Spring Break, no classes
Around the Watercooler Our very own Max Gaston and Jonathan Bailey will be in the production of the Piano Lesson at South Bend Civic Theater from March 15-24. Provost McGreevy will hold open office hours Friday, March 8, 10:30 a.m. to noon; in the Dooley Room, LaFortune Student Center
U\u27wa Indigenous People vs. Columbia: Potential Applications of the Escazu Agreement
No full textThough the case is ongoing, and results are still to be seen, it in many ways sets a precedent for indigenous communities in Latin America seeking redress for environmental and cultural injustices. With Colombia’s recent ratification of The Escazú Regional Agreement (the Agreement herein) in 2022, this case presents a unique opportunity for implementation of the Agreement and greater accountability within existing domestic legislation
