From our Chickens Coming Home to Roost Dept.: Jeffrey Epstein's famous island lies within the US Virgin Islands, giving the US absolute jurisdiction. Any failure to prosecute individuals for crimes committed there lies entirely at the peril of the US Justice Dept., and there is no statute of limitations (viz: The Mann Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–2423) is subject to federal statutes of limitations, with some important exceptions for cases involving death or certain child‑victim provisions). It would be interesting to assess the culpability, including impeachment, of a DOJ official who so failed in "her" duty (Attn: Pam Bondi). Any prosecution of a "high ranking government official" for crimes committed under such law prior to "his" assuming office would presumably not be impeded by any grant by any court of immunity during such tenure of office.

1. Background (per Perplexity)

Example: The Mann Act was originally intended to criminalize transporting women and girls across state or national lines for prostitution, “debauchery,” or other so‑called immoral purposes, and today it functions mainly as a tool against sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation.[1][2][3] It is still used, but far less visibly than in its early decades, and now tends to appear as part of broader federal trafficking or sex‑crime prosecutions rather than as a stand‑alone, high‑profile charge.[4][5]

Original intent

- The Act (1910) made it a felony to transport any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose” in interstate or foreign commerce.[1][3]
- Its intent was to combat prostitution and “white slavery” (coerced prostitution and trafficking), reflecting Progressive‑Era moral panic about sexual immorality, immigrants, and the protection of white women.[6][3][7]
- Broad “immoral purpose” language let prosecutors target consensual adult relationships, and the law was used selectively and sometimes abusively (e.g., against Jack Johnson), which has drawn sustained historical and scholarly criticism.[1][7][8]

Modern legal focus

- Amendments in 1978 and 1986 narrowed the Act so that it now focuses on transport for prostitution or other illegal sexual activity, and its language has been stripped of gender‑specific terms.[1][2][9]
- In current form (18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–2423), it is part of the federal anti‑trafficking framework and is used against those who transport or cause transport for commercial sex or other criminal sexual conduct, including involving minors.[1][10][5]

How often it is used now

- Federal human‑trafficking reports show that Mann Act–type transportation charges are a subset of overall federal sex‑trafficking and commercial‑sex prosecutions, which number in the low hundreds of new criminal cases nationwide each year.[4][11]
- Contemporary practice often bundles Mann Act counts with other statutes such as sex‑trafficking, child‑exploitation, or racketeering charges rather than relying on it alone, so its use is regular but not usually the centerpiece of modern trafficking prosecutions.[4][12][5]

Present‑day examples

- Recent high‑profile prosecutions of entertainers and public figures have included Mann Act counts for arranging or facilitating interstate travel for prostitution or related exploitation, illustrating its continued relevance.[13][14]
- Defense and prosecution practice guides emphasize that, despite its age, the Act is still a live* tool: it is invoked in cases involving online arrangements, digital payments, and coordinated travel for commercial sex, particularly where there is evidence of coercion or trafficking.[15][16][12][5]

Roosting chickens

To be sure, the Mann Act has a long history of being used in a punitive, selective, and sometimes overtly political way, especially in the first half of the 20th century.[1][2][3]

Early punitive and political uses

- Historians widely note that the Act’s vague “any other immoral purpose” language let prosecutors target consensual adult relationships and unpopular figures, turning it into a tool to police private morality rather than just trafficking.[1][4][5]
- Contemporary and later commentators describe the law as having been used for “political persecution and as a tool for blackmail,” particularly against people who offended prevailing social or racial hierarchies.[1][2][3]

Jack Johnson and race‑based targeting

- The most famous example is African American heavyweight champion Jack Johnson, prosecuted under the Mann Act for transporting a white girlfriend across state lines, despite the consensual nature of the relationship.[1][6][7]
- Commentators and legal historians see Johnson’s case as racially and morally charged, reflecting vindictive use of the statute to punish a Black man for defying Jim Crow norms and interracial taboos rather than for trafficking or coercion.[4][6][8]

Celebrity and ideological cases

- The law was also invoked against other high‑profile men whose sex lives or politics irritated authorities; critics point to these cases as examples where the Mann Act became a convenient pretext rather than a targeted anti‑trafficking tool.[3][2][7]
- One well‑documented example is the Mann Act case brought against Charlie Chaplin, where internal FBI files and later accounts suggest J. Edgar Hoover pushed the prosecution aggressively amid broader hostility to Chaplin’s perceived left‑leaning politics.[3][9]

Modern view of “vindictive” use

- Legal and historical scholarship now uses the early Mann Act experience as a cautionary example of how broadly worded morality statutes can facilitate selective or vindictive enforcement by prosecutors and political actors.[10][4][5]
- Amendments in the late 20th century narrowed the Act’s language and modern practice generally ties it to clearer trafficking or commercial‑sex offenses, but its history remains a touchstone in debates over prosecutorial discretion and politicized criminal law.[1][11][7]

Sources on request by Jan 11, 2026.