The individuals were indicted for transporting women across state lines to enter into plural marriages.

In explaining its reasoning, the court opined that although the Mann Act was primarily intended to target commercialized white sex slave trade, the phrase "for any other immoral purpose" makes plain that the Act is not so narrowly limited.

Finally, the Court found that there is no viable defense to the Mann Act by virtue of the religious beliefs that motivate the practice of polygamy.

[4] However, Rutledge diverged from the majority view in expressing his opinion that the Caminetti case was wrongly decided, as it improperly expanded the application of the Mann Act beyond the legislators' intent.

Justice Frank Murphy delivered a dissenting opinion, stating that polygamy is not of the same genus as "prostitution and debauchery" as contemplated by the Mann Act.