Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1633 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`GARY M. RESTAINO
`United States Attorney
`District of Arizona
`
`KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov)
`MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov)
`PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov)
`ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov)
`Assistant U.S. Attorneys
`40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800
`Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408
`Telephone (602) 514-7500
`
`DAN G. BOYLE (N.Y. Bar No. 5216825, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov)
`Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
`312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90012
`Telephone (213) 894-2426
`
`KENNETH POLITE
`Assistant Attorney General
`Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
`
`AUSTIN M. BERRY (Texas Bar No. 24062615, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov)
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
`1301 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone (202) 412-4136
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`
`
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Michael Lacey, et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`CR-18-422-PHX-DJH
`
`UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
`[Doc. 1632]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1633 Filed 07/12/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority does not support reconsideration of
`
`the June 1, 2023 Order (Doc. 1587) for several reasons:
`
`1.
`Woodhull Freedom Found. v. United States, --- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 4376244
`(D.C. Cir. July 7, 2023), involved a pre-enforcement, facial overbreadth challenge to 18
`U.S.C. § 2421A(a), a provision of the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex
`Trafficking Act (FOSTA) that makes it a felony to [1] own, manage, or operate an online
`platform [2] “with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.”
`The parties did not litigate—and the D.C. Circuit did not address—what a FOSTA
`indictment must allege to survive a motion to dismiss at the pleading stage. The court did
`not address the essential elements of a Travel Act indictment—and the D.C. Circuit did not
`(and could not) overrule Ninth Circuit precedent on that point. E.g., United States v.
`Tavelman, 650 F.2d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 1981).
`
`2.
`Woodhull focused on the narrow question of whether the second prong of
`§ 2421A(a)—the mens rea requirement—reaches general advocacy and health and safety
`information. 2023 WL 4376244, at *6-7. The court considered traditional criminal law
`meanings and the context of the statute, which has “a very specific criminal object”—“the
`prostitution of another person”—and held “that Section 2421A(a)’s mental state
`requirement” “reaches a person’s intent to aid or abet the prostitution of another person.”
`Id. at *7-10. But the court did not hold, and the United States never argued, that FOSTA
`requires proof of all elements of a traditional claim of aiding and abetting. See id. at *10;
`Doc. 1577 at 15-16. For example, the opinion nowhere holds that FOSTA requires a
`completed, underlying act of prostitution. Judge Katsas made the same point in an earlier
`appeal, as the United States emphasized. Woodhull Freedom Found. v. United States, 948
`F.3d 363, 375 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (Katsas, J., concurring); Doc. 1577 at 15-16.
`
`3.
`Woodhull referred to the Travel Act in passing, but did not analyze it. 2023
`WL 4376244, at *9. At most, the panel noted that the Act contains an intent requirement
`that uses the terms “promote . . . or facilitate the promotion of,” and followed that
`observation with a “cf.” citation to Urena-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 51, 54 (1st Cir.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1633 Filed 07/12/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`2003). Id. at *9. Urena-Ramirez, in turn, concerned whether a Travel Act conviction was
`sufficiently related to “a controlled substance offense” to support a non-citizen’s removal
`under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i); it nowhere discusses the Travel Act’s pleading or proof
`requirements.
`
`4.
`If anything, Woodhull reflects how the Travel Act’s mens rea element
`operates differently than FOSTA’s. FOSTA criminalizes operating an online platform with
`“intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person”; in contrast, the Travel
`Act prohibits using any facility of interstate commerce with intent to promote, or facilitate
`the promotion of, an “unlawful activity”—here, “any business enterprise involving
`prostitution offenses in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of
`the United States[.]” Compare 18 U.S.C. § 2421A(a) (emphasis added) with 18 U.S.C.
`§ 1952(a)(3), (b)(i)(1) (emphasis added). The Travel Act’s focus on unlawful business
`enterprises, rather than the prostitution of any individual person, shows that the statutes’
`intent requirements have different “criminal object[s].” Woodhull, 2023 WL 4376244, at
`*10. Woodhull also emphasizes the importance of reading a statute’s terms in context, with
`each word drawing meaning from the other words of the statute, viewing each word “in
`light of its context and placement in the statutory scheme.” Id. at *6-7.
`
`5.
`Defendants’ judicial estoppel argument misses the mark, because the United
`States did not argue in Woodhull—and the D.C. Circuit did not hold—that the use of words
`“promote or facilitate” in FOSTA’s mental state requirement requires the government to
`plead, let alone prove, all elements of a traditional aiding and abetting charge to convict a
`defendant of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2421. See Doc. 1577 at 16-17. And, of course, Woodhull
`contains no similar holdings about the Travel Act—a statute that was not at issue.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1633 Filed 07/12/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`Respectfully submitted this 12th day of July, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`GARY M. RESTAINO
`
`
`
`
`
`United States Attorney
`
`
`
`
`
`District of Arizona
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KENNETH POLITE
`Assistant Attorney General
`
`
`
`
`
`Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
`
` s/Peter S. Kozinets
`KEVIN M. RAPP
`MARGARET PERLMETER
`PETER KOZINETS
`ANDREW STONE
`DANIEL BOYLE
`Assistant U.S. Attorneys
`AUSTIN M. BERRY
`Trial Attorney
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on July 12, 2023, I electronically transmitted the attached
`
`document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a
`Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance
`as counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Tammie Holm
`Tammie Holm
`Paralegal Specialist
`U.S. Attorney’s Office
`
`- 3 -
`
`