United States v. Thompson, 896 F.3d 155

Background

Thompson (age 26 at relationship start) controlled and prostituted two minors (M1 age 13–15; M2 age 15) in 2013–2014 via in-person direction, Backpage ads, travel, and financial domination; he continued control while jailed and after release.
A December 2014 video of M1 performing oral sex on Thompson was filmed in the Bronx (Southern District); phone evidence led to federal charges and trial in the Eastern District of New York.
A jury convicted Thompson on nine counts including sex trafficking of minors (18 U.S.C. §1591(a), (b)(1)) and production of child pornography (18 U.S.C. §2251(a)).
District Court applied Guidelines (Fatico hearing finding additional conduct) and sentenced Thompson principally to 30 years; he appealed.
On appeal Thompson raised three principal challenges: (1) §1591 is facially overbroad under the First Amendment; (2) the indictment inadequately alleged mens rea for the §1591(b)(1) (under-14) enhancement; and (3) venue was improper in the Eastern District for the §2251(a) count.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson)	Government's Argument	Held
1. Whether 18 U.S.C. §1591 is facially overbroad (First Amendment associational rights)	§1591 could criminalize charities, religious groups, therapists, lawyers, or family members who provide food/shelter/support to minors engaged in prostitution, chilling expressive or intimate association	Statute targets non‑expressive criminal conduct (trafficking); hypothetical applications are insubstantial versus statute’s legitimate sweep; as‑applied challenges available	Overbreadth challenge rejected; §1591 not substantially burdensome on expressive or intimate association on this record
2. Whether the indictment must allege knowledge that victim was under 14 to support §1591(b)(1) enhanced penalties	§1591(b)(1) imposes higher punishment for under‑14 victims and thus requires proof defendant knew (or recklessly disregarded) victim was under 14	Statute’s text contains mens rea only as to ‘‘has not attained the age of 18’’; no additional knowledge element for the under‑14 enhancement; indictment properly tracked statutory language	Rejected; indictment adequate—knowledge (or reckless disregard) that victim was under 18 suffices for §1591(a) and the §1591(b)(1) enhancement need not include separate knowledge of under‑14 age
3. Whether venue was proper in the Eastern District for the §2251(a) production charge	Venue improper because the video was produced in the Southern District and Eastern‑District acts related only to prostitution, not production	Government: venue proper where parts of the criminal conduct (enticement/grooming/persuasion) occurred; grooming in Eastern District led to production in Southern District	Venue in Eastern District upheld: jury could find, by preponderance, that grooming/enticement in Eastern District induced M1 to participate in the filmed sex acts
4. (Subsidiary) Whether §1591’s breadth would realistically produce substantial unconstitutional prosecutions of family/aid providers	Argues empirical risk of such prosecutions is substantial	Government and court note lack of record evidence showing many such prosecutions or mens rea among family/aid providers	Court: speculative and record‑poor; overbreadth standard not met; as‑applied relief preserves future challenges

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (First Amendment overbreadth standard) (facial overbreadth requires substantial unconstitutional applications relative to legitimate sweep)
New York State Club Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1 (overbreadth burden to show substantial number of unconstitutional applications)
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (distinction between intimate and expressive association)
Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (expressive association and forced inclusion context)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (limits on speech that constitutes material support)
Hosanna‑Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (ministerial‑exception limits on government interference with internal religious decisions)
Flores‑Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (mens rea scope: reading "knowingly" to reach subsequent elements where natural)
United States v. X‑Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (mens rea presumptions and sexual‑offense statutes)
United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22 (Second Circuit: mens rea presumptions less forceful in sex crimes against minors confronted personally)
United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (grooming evidence supports finding of ‘‘entice’’ under §2251)
United States v. Sullivan, 797 F.3d 623 (9th Cir.: grooming/enticement in one district can support venue for production in another)
United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405 (4th Cir.: grooming communications can establish enticement for §2251 venue)