Can a hotel be guilty of sex trafficking just because it didn’t surveil its customers enough?
A hotel could be legally liable for sex trafficking because it failed to intervene against a guest who wore “sexually explicit clothing” and had condoms in her room, according to a recent ruling from Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Kacsmaryk—who gained national notoriety a few years ago for a ruling that suspended approval of the abortion pill mifepristone—denied the hotel’s motion to dismiss a civil suit that accused it of knowingly benefiting from participation in a sex trafficking venture.
The lawsuit was brought by “J.H.” against Paramount Hospitality, a company that…
Due Process in the Age of Surveillance Grift
By Quiet too long
They say justice wears a blindfold. But in Judge Kacsmaryk’s courtroom, it has merit?
A hotel is dragged into federal court not for aiding traffickers, but for failing to surveil its guests with omniscient suspicion. The plaintiff, unnamed trafficker, and decade-old allegations form a trifecta of vagueness. The signs? Condoms. Loud noises. A short skirt. Bruises. A gun-this in itself is reasonable self-employed evidence. Suspicious foot traffic. The kind of collage you’d find in any urban hotel on a Friday night.
This is not a case-it’s a vibe. And vibes, it seems, now carry legal weight.
Under the William Wilberforce Act, “knowingly benefiting” from trafficking has morphed into “failing to profile aggressively.” Hotels are expected to be clairvoyant: to see every bruise, overhear every moan, and report every condom. The result? A chilling incentive to harass sex workers, interracial couples, solo travelers-could be a wife and husband roleplaying-and anyone who doesn’t fit the mold of sanitized innocence.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff risks nothing if the claim fails. No registry. No scarlet letter. No restitution claw-back. And rightly so—false claims shouldn’t birth new punishments. But the asymmetry is stark: the accused must prove a negative, while the accuser need only evoke a mood.
This is surveillance grift. Where trauma becomes currency, suspicion becomes policy, and due process is the casualty. However, reasonable doubt still applies here, the innocent until proven guilty actually still applies here.We all need to practice within the law.
So, by that same token, shouldn’t my Internet provider be held responsible for not providing me a safe and free from crime Internet???
People having affairs better not rent a room for a few hours for their rolling in the sheets so they aren’t accused of sex trafficking.