HR-9071-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Troy Nehls (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend the federal coercion and enticement statute (18 U.S.C. § 2422) to explicitly make it a federal crime to patronize, solicit, or pay for a commercial sex act with a minor. It would eliminate "I didn't know their age" as a legal defense when the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim, and would remove the requirement that prosecutors prove force, fraud, or coercion when the victim is a minor. It would also raise the mandatory minimum sentence from 10 to 15 years when the victim is under 14, and would clarify that attempting to buy sex from an undercover officer posing as a minor is still a prosecutable offense.
Who benefits
Minor victims of commercial sexual exploitation, who would receive stronger federal legal protections. Federal and state prosecutors, who would gain clearer statutory authority to charge buyers ("demand side") of child sex trafficking without proving coercion. Law enforcement agencies running sting operations targeting child sex buyers, who would have an explicit statutory basis for those operations. Child advocacy organizations that have long argued existing law focused too narrowly on traffickers rather than buyers. Survivors of child sex trafficking who may see greater accountability for those who purchased sex from them.
Who is hurt
Defendants charged under the expanded statute, who would face higher mandatory minimums and would be unable to assert a good-faith belief about the victim's age as a defense. Criminal defense attorneys argue strict liability on age removes a traditional mens rea element. Individuals convicted under sting operations involving no actual minor victim would face the same penalties as those who harmed a real child. Federal public defenders and courts would face increased caseloads and longer sentences driving up incarceration costs. Taxpayers would bear the cost of longer federal prison terms under the enhanced mandatory minimums.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that existing federal law created a gap by focusing on traffickers and those who "entice" minors, while buyers — who drive demand for child sex trafficking — faced less clear federal exposure. They contend that eliminating the age-mistake defense is appropriate because minors cannot legally consent to commercial sex under any circumstances, and that placing the burden of verifying age on the buyer is a reasonable deterrent. They further argue that raising the mandatory minimum to 15 years for victims under 14 reflects the severity of abuse against the youngest victims and aligns federal sentencing with the gravity of the offense.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that eliminating the mens rea defense on age — a traditional element of criminal intent — raises serious due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment, particularly when the penalty is a 10-to-15-year mandatory minimum. They contend that mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion to account for individual circumstances, a concern reinforced by the fact that the same sentence applies whether the defendant encountered a real child or an undercover officer. Critics also argue that sting-based prosecutions without a real victim may raise proportionality questions under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive punishment, and that existing federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1591) already covers many of these scenarios.
Constitutional context
The bill's elimination of an age-mistake defense implicates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which courts have scrutinized when strict liability attaches to serious criminal penalties. The Eighth Amendment's proportionality principle — relevant after Timbs v. Indiana (2019) reaffirmed the Excessive Fines Clause's incorporation — may be raised against mandatory minimums applied uniformly regardless of whether a real minor was involved. The bill's sting-operation provision also touches on entrapment doctrine, though that is a common law defense rather than a constitutional mandate.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (DOJ/FBI) gains expanded prosecutorial authority to charge buyers of child sex; judicial checks include constitutional challenges to strict liability and mandatory minimums, while Congress retains authority to modify sentencing ranges.
Historical precedent
The PROTECT Act of 2003 and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act similarly expanded federal criminal liability for child sex offenses and eliminated certain defenses, establishing a pattern of Congress broadening the demand-side reach of anti-trafficking law.