"20 Years Later: The Federalization of State Crimes, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and the Prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein" I. Introduction In 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) was added to the Mann Act as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The enactment of § 2422(b) was part of an unprecedented expansion of federal crimes, which began in 1980 and extended to the mid-1990's.' Because the creation and prosecution of crimes were historically under the control of state and local govemments2 and because the new federal statutes were largely duplicative of state statutes3, the legislation was the subject of extensive criticism and consequent debate among academics, prosecutors, and judges.4 Twenty years having passed since the adoption of § 2422(b), an analysis is now possible of whether the consequences anticipated by certain commentators with respect to the expansion of federal crimes-specifically the erosion of state and local sovereignty and the violation of civil liberties—have materialized. This article approaches this inquiry through an examination Greg Hollon, After the Federalization Binge: A Civil Liberties Hangover, 31 Harv. C.R.- C.L. L. Rev. 499 (1996); Jamie S. Gorelick & Harry Litman, Prosecutorial Discretion and the Federalization Debate, 46 Hastings L. Journal 967 (1995); Stephen Chippendale, Note, More Harm Than Good Assessing Federalization of Criminal Law, 79 Minn. L. Rev. 455, 455-57 (1994). 2 Stephen Chippendale, More Hann Than Good Assessing Federalization of Criminal Law, 79 Minn. L. Rev. 455, 457-58 (1994); Roger J. Miner, Federal Courts, Federal Crimes, and Federalism, 10 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Policy 117, 118-120 (1987). 3 See Stephen Chippendale, More Harm Than Good Assessing Federalization of Criminal Law" 79 Minn. L. Rev. 455, 463 (1994) ("Freed by Perez from the fetters of the Commerce Clause, Congress has increasingly federalized criminal offenses that were historically regarded as within the domain of the states."); Susan N.