Sean “Diddy” Combs is continuing to fight his federal conviction under the Mann Act, arguing that prosecutors relied on the wrong legal definition of prostitution when securing his guilty verdict.
According to new court filings, Combs’ legal team is asking U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian to either acquit him of the charges or grant him a new trial.
The filings contend that prosecutors improperly applied a modern definition of prostitution rather than the one in place when the Mann Act was enacted in 1910.
Background of the Case
Combs was previously convicted on two counts of transporting individuals across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, a violation of the Mann Act. Prosecutors alleged that he arranged for male escorts to engage in sexual activity with women, paying them in the process.
The defense, however, disputes this interpretation. Combs has maintained that the men were compensated only for their time and companionship, not for sex. His attorneys described his role as limited to voyeurism rather than facilitation of prostitution.
Defense Argument: 1910 Definition vs. Modern Interpretation
At the heart of the defense’s argument is the definition of “prostitution.” Combs’ attorneys claim that in 1910—when Congress passed the Mann Act—the word carried a narrower meaning: referring to a “woman who had sex outside of marriage,” rather than to commercial sex activity.
By relying on contemporary interpretations that equate prostitution with sex-for-hire, the defense argues, prosecutors expanded the scope of the Mann Act beyond what the original statute intended. This, they say, deprived Combs of a fair trial.
Legal Implications
The motion underscores a classic tension in criminal law: whether courts should interpret statutes based on the meaning of terms at the time of enactment (originalism) or according to evolving, modern definitions.
If Judge Subramanian agrees with Combs’ legal team, the ruling could significantly reshape how the Mann Act is applied in future cases.
However, if the court rejects the argument, Combs will remain convicted under the broader, contemporary definition of prostitution.
What Comes Next
The court will now consider the defense’s motion and determine whether a new trial or acquittal is warranted. The outcome could hinge on statutory interpretation principles and whether the court views the Mann Act as a “living law” subject to modern definitions or one bound by its historical context.
Combs’ legal battle illustrates not only the stakes for a high-profile defendant but also the broader legal questions surrounding statutory interpretation, prosecutorial discretion, and the evolution of vice laws over more than a century.
