Proving an intended sex crime
Jordan Jysae Pulido v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Jordan Jysae Pulido asked the Supreme Court to review whether prosecutors must charge and prove a specific underlying crime when applying a federal law against transporting a minor across state or national borders for intended sexual activity, or whether that crime is only one way to satisfy the law.
- Who it affects
- Pulido did not receive Supreme Court review, and the order did not decide what prosecutors must prove under the federal law.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review) and did not decide the issue.
The federal law at issue covers transporting someone under 18 across state or national borders with intent for sexual activity that could be charged as a crime.
Question presented
Does 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), which criminalizes the transportation of a person who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, require that the government charge and prove that the intended sexual activity would violate a particular predicate offense as an element, or is the specific predicate offense merely a means of satisfying the § 2423(a) charge?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.