Caminetti v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 13–14, 1916 Decided January 15, 1917
Full case name	F. Drew Caminetti v. United States; Maury I. Diggs v. United States; L.T. Hays v. United States
Citations	242 U.S. 470 (more) 37 S. Ct. 192; 61 L. Ed. 442
Case history
Prior	Diggs v. United States, 220 F. 545 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 238 U.S. 637 (1915). Hays v. United States, 231 F. 106 (8th Cir.), cert. granted, 241 U.S. 674 (1916).
Holding
The Mann Act applied not only to purposes of prostitution but also to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons. Thus, consensual extramarital sex falls within the genre of "immoral practice."
Court membership
Chief Justice Edward D. White Associate Justices Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes Jr. William R. Day · Willis Van Devanter Mahlon Pitney · James C. McReynolds Louis Brandeis · John H. Clarke
Case opinions
Majority	Day, joined by Holmes, Van Devanter, Pitney, Brandeis
Dissent	McKenna, joined by White, Clarke
McReynolds took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
White-Slave Traffic (Mann) Act, ch. 395, 36 Stat. 825 (1910) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421-2424).
Abrogated by
Child Sexual Abuse & Pornography Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-628, § 5(b)(1), 100 Stat. 3510–11 (in part)

Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Farley Drew Caminetti and the Mann Act. The Court decided that the Mann Act applied not only to purposes of prostitution but also to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons. Thus, consensual extramarital sex falls within the definition of "immoral sex."

The case has an historic place in American jurisprudence in that it was one of the first where the court embraced the idea of the "plain meaning rule". This is a form of legislative interpretation that focuses strongly on the literal text of a statute. In its most extreme form the plain meaning rule does not look outside of the statutory text at any additional sources to find the legislative intent if the rule is "plain" from the text. Critics of using the plain meaning rule argue that a court may find or not find an ambiguity in a statute depending on the result that a court sees fit.

The issue in the case that caused the Court to interpret using the plain meaning rule was whether the Mann Act's inclusion of the phrase "...or for any other immoral purpose..." included Caminetti's actions. The Court found that Caminetti had been convicted of transporting a woman across state lines for an immoral purpose which, according to the majority opinion, was well within the plain meaning of the statute.

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 242
• United States v. Bitty (1911)
• Athanasaw & Sampson v. United States, 227 U.S. 326 (1913)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Caminetti v. United States" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

• Anderson, Robert L. (1990). The Diggs–Caminetti case, 1913–1917: For Any Other Immoral Purpose. Studies in Twentieth Century American History. Vol. 1. Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press. ISBN 0-88946-320-4.
• Huston, John A. (1947). "Prosecution of Mormon "Fundamentalists" under the Mann Act—Doctrine of Caminetti v. United States". Michigan Law Review. 45 (6). The Michigan Law Review Association: 785–787. doi:10.2307/1283936. JSTOR 1283936.

• Works related to Caminetti v. United States at Wikisource
• Text of Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e