SAN FRANCISCO—Sometime later this year, or possibly early in 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear argument from attorneys Jason Guinasso and his new co-counsel, Christen Price of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), as to why their clients, Texas resident Rebekah Charleston and co-plaintiffs Leah Albright-Byrd and Angela Delgado-Williams (who never worked in a Nevada brothel), should have their case against the state, its Gov. Steve Sisolak and its legislature reinstated even though Nevada Chief Federal Judge Miranda M. Du made it clear that none of the plaintiffs have standing to bring the suit.
"Three elements must be met to establish standing," Judge Du wrote in an opinion issued October 29, 2019. "The plaintiffs must have '(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant [State of Nevada], and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.' ... The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently established the three elements of standing."
Interestingly, NCOSE took this dismissal as a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, when in fact Judge Du had not even considered the alleged facts of the case.
According to a press release from NCOSE last Friday, Nevada's legal prostitution industry is "inherently linked to higher rates of domestic violence and rape of women" and the state, "by legalizing and protecting the commercial sex industry, is responsible for enabling these harms to and crimes against women."
The so-called "crimes against women" consist mainly of alleged Mann Act violations, which law reads, "Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." Trouble is, of course, women—168 of them out of 241 who applied for brothel work permits, according to NCOSE—come to Nevada for various reasons and from various hometowns for the express reason of making money through prostitution, with the vast majority (if not all) needing no persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion to do so.
But that wasn't good enough for NCOSE.
"Legalizing prostitution does not prevent the violence and rape in prostitution," NCOSE claimed in its Ninth Circuit petition. "It assents to it—defying the very purpose behind federal law."
The lawsuit also charges that legal Nevada prostitutes are "slaves," and that therefore, Nevada legal prostitution laws are per se in violation of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
And to be fair, Charleston and her attorneys have come up with some unique claims as to why legal prostitutes fit the definition of "slaves," including the fact that most brothels are located in hot, dry, less-populated areas, and the specious claims that "some brothels do not permit women to have a car, enforce strict 5pm curfews, and even mandate that women must stay in the fenced-in compound for two weeks as part of their shift" and that, "If a woman did escape past the exit door, she would be stopped once again by the hot, dry, and vast desert, which severely limits a victim’s ability to reach out for help." When AVN wrote about this lawsuit and asked adult performers who had worked in Nevada brothels or were familiar with them, those who responded, including veteran actress Nina Hartley, described such "restrictions" as "crap," and that although the women who signed on with a brothel were expected to stay at the place for two weeks at a time, they were otherwise free to do more or less as they pleased, including running errands and communicating with others by phone or internet.
The NCOSE press release also claims that brothels are "dirty, desolate, coercive, and ripe for legal challenge," and that "rape rates are reported to be five times higher in rural counties with legalized prostitution compared to counties where prostituting people is illegal." (So in a county where any adult can go to a brothel, pay a few bucks and have sex, there's more rape???) That last claim is sourced from a Nevada Law Journal article, "America's 'Disneyland of Sex': Exploring the Problem of Sex Trafficking in Las Vegas and Nevada's Response," an anti-prostitution screed which focuses on sex in Las Vegas, where prostitution is not legal.
"Appellants theorize that Nevada’s legal brothels serve as a catalyst for illegal interstate sex trafficking," Nevada stated in its Answer to Appellants' petition. "Appellants have not sued any brothel owners, brothel managers, or sex traffickers, nor have they specifically identified any tortious conduct on the part of local regulators or law enforcement officials. Their grievance relates specifically to the existence of [laws legalizing prostitution]. Although they have explained at length why [those laws] are objectionable for reasons of public policy, Appellants cannot trace a concrete injury to the existence of these statutes.
"The only thread between Appellants’ injuries and the statutes which they assail are the conclusions of social scientists and others who posit that legal prostitution fuels the demand for illegal prostitution, thus encouraging criminal sex traffickers to meet that demand," it later added. "This thread is far too tenuous to serve as the basis for Appellants’ standing in this case."
Moreover, NCOSE claims that, "Brothel advertisements in areas where prostitution is illegal creates and markets demand that encourages men to travel across state lines to buy sex, which, under federal law is illegal." Of course, it isn't illegal in any area where prostitution is legal—as it is in seven counties in Nevada.
Nonetheless, NCOSE and its plaintiffs claim they want to "shut down not just brothels, but the entire commercial sex trade in Nevada," even though they never make clear just what Nevada's "commercial sex trade" is aside from the brothels, since all non-brothel prostitution in the state is already illegal. They also claim they want to "ensure that Nevada is held accountable for allowing sex trafficking to occur"—even though there is no evidence that the legal brothel system is engaged in sex trafficking, despite Charleston's claims, without providing any evidence, that she was trafficked into the Moonlite Bunny Ranch in 2004 or 2005 (she can't remember)—and require that the State "provide[] assistance to women exiting the sex trade industry."
"Every single worker at the Mustang Ranch is required to undergo an FBI fingerprint and criminal database background check every single year," Mustang Ranch owner Lance Gilman told Reno's KOLO-TV. "In over 4,000 work card applications filed over the last 20 years by working professionals and employees at the Mustang, not one has turned up to be a victim of trafficking." In fact, all legal prostitutes in the state undergo similar background checks, and are screened for venereal diseases.
Simply put, it's likely that the Ninth Circuit panel will take one look at Judge Du's dismissal of the case and say something the effect of, "Why are we here?"—unless, of course, it winds up before a panel comprised of the ten judges Trump has appointed to the circuit.
AVN will be following and reporting on the progress of this case.
Pictured: Rebekah Charleston speaking at a TedTalk.
