Hoke & Economides v. United States
227 U.S. 308, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2301, 33 S. Ct. 281 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Congress may, under its Commerce Clause authority, prohibit the transportation of persons across state lines for immoral purposes, as this power is plenary and includes the ability to regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce to prevent harm and evil.
Facts:
- Effie Hoke and Basile Economides were located in New Orleans, Louisiana.
- On November 14, 1910, Hoke persuaded and induced a woman, Annette Baden, to travel from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Beaumont, Texas.
- Economides knowingly aided and assisted Hoke in persuading Baden to make the interstate journey.
- The explicit purpose of the travel was for Baden to engage in prostitution in Beaumont.
- Hoke and Economides engaged in the same conduct with a second woman, who was under the age of eighteen.
- Once in Beaumont, Hoke restrained the women's liberty at her house and coerced them to stay.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged Effie Hoke and Basile Economides in federal court for the Eastern District of Louisiana with violating the White Slave Act of 1910.
- The defendants filed a demurrer, challenging the constitutionality of the act.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Hoke and Economides on all counts.
- The defendants appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the White Slave Act of 1910, which criminalizes persuading a woman to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution, exceed Congress's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause and improperly invade the police powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McKenna
No, the White Slave Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The power to regulate commerce among the states is direct, complete, and without limitation. This authority includes the transportation of persons as well as property. While individuals have a right to move between states, this right is for beneficial purposes and cannot be perverted to justify movement for immoral ends. The court has previously upheld congressional prohibitions on the interstate movement of harmful items such as lottery tickets, obscene literature, and impure food, and the same principle applies here. This act does not usurp state police powers; rather, it regulates a domain the states cannot reach—the channels of interstate commerce—to promote the general welfare and moral well-being of the nation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, establishing that Congress could regulate interstate commerce for social and moral objectives, effectively creating a federal police power. The case affirmed that the purpose behind interstate transportation could bring an activity within federal jurisdiction, even if the underlying activity, such as prostitution, was traditionally a matter of local state regulation. This precedent paved the way for a wide range of future federal legislation targeting social ills, from stolen vehicles to kidnapping, by regulating their connection to the channels of interstate commerce.
