See: Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)The issue of whether § 33.021 violates either doctrine has not been addressed by either the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals or the federal courts. But it should be pointed out that § 33.021 is similar to 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) which prohibits: (b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.§ 2422(b) prosecutions primarily involve adults trying to solicit minors online to engage in prohibited sexual activity. Often the “minor” in the case is a state or federal law enforcement officer representing himself or herself as a minor.

Rather, there must be an effort to have the intermediary induce, persuade, entice or coerce the child to have sex with the defendant.United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2014)The Fifth Circuit upheld the defendant’s conviction for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The defendant communicated with an undercover agent about having sex with the agent’s daughter.

It is called proactive online policing: law enforcement officials posing as minors, or guardians of minors, on the Internet to catch child sexual predators. Many of these accused predators are prosecuted under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), although a significant number are prosecuted under various state child sex exploitation laws.§ 2422(b) provides:“Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this rule and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.”This law imposes a severe mandatory minimum of 10 years. It punishes the crime and the attempt to commit the crime in the same manner.

He was promptly arrested.18 U.S.C. § 2260A Adds Ten Years to Sex Offender’s SentenceFederal prosecutors in the Southern District of Ohio charged Fortner with two counts: 1) attempting to coerce a minor into illegal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and 2) violation of a statutory provision of 18 U.S.C. § 2260A that adds ten years to a registered sex offender’s sentence upon conviction of a federal offense involving a minor.In May 2018, Fortner pled guilty to count one but moved to have the second count dismissed because his underlying offense did not involve an actual minor.

The women who worked for him were expected to refrain from engaging in relationships with men outside of their business, to have sex with Purcell, to report their activity and spending to him, and to give him the money they earned. Purcell controlled nearly all aspects of their lives, and sometimes used threatening language and violence to enforce his rules.After procuring evidence from Facebook in part through the search warrants obtained in state court by the New York County District Attorney (“DANY”), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York charged Purcell on five counts related to interstate sex trafficking: enticement to engage in unlawful sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§2422(a) and 2 (Count One); transportation of individuals in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421(a) and 2 (Count Two); use of facilities of interstate commerce to promote unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(3) and 2 (Count Three); conspiracy to use interstate commerce to promote unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count Four); and sex trafficking by force, fraud, and coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (a)(2) and 2 (Count Five).The evidence relevant to his appeal related most specifically to four victims: Marie Ann Wood (who provided testimony with respect to Count Five), Sharon Alwell (who provided testimony with respect to Count One), Samantha Vasquez (who did not testify at trial, but whose documentary evidence related to Counts One and Two), and Stephanie Alcantara (who provided testimony with respect to Count One).

United States v. McMillan, No. 12-1348. McMillian was convicted of one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) which prohibits persuading a person under the age of 18 to engage in criminal sexual activity. McMillan argued he could not be convicted under § 2422(b) because he only had contact with father of the purported teenage girl, rather than the girl herself.

Taylor engaged in sexual acts in front of a webcam during online chats with a law-enforcement officer posing as a 13-year-old girl. He was convicted of attempting to use the facilities of interstate commerce to engage in criminal sexual activity with a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered an acquittal, holding that “sexual activity” under § 2422(b) requires evidence of physical contact.

United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2014) The Fifth Circuit upheld the defendant’s conviction for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The defendant communicated with an undercover agent about having sex with the agent’s daughter.

United States v. Taylor, 640 F.3d 255 (7th Cir. 2011)The defendant masturbated in front of a webcam while communicating with a child (actually, a police officer who he thought was a child) and also invited the girl to masturbate. He was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422: using a means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, entice or coerce any child to engage in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempt to do so. Judge Posner decided that this activity did not constitute “sexual activity.” There is no definition of the term in the code.

SCOTUSBlog has a petition for the day which may have some military justice impact if granted.Hart v. United States. The response is due 29 September 2011.Here is the QP:Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) – which makes it a crime "to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years to engage in… any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense" – requires a jury to come to a unanimous verdict on a single, specific underlying criminal offense for which the defendant could be charged.Here’s a possible hook into current military practice (and I think you can substitute the two-thirds for the unanimous). Does this set up a Walters–like issue? I’ll cite from United States v. Trew, 68 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2009), a case I had at trial.