18 U.S.C. § 1589
Forced labor
2008—Pub. L. 110–457 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section provided penalties for knowingly providing or obtaining forced labor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 470
cases (303 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Paguirigan v. Prompt Nursing Emp't Agency LLC, 286 F. Supp. 3d 430 (E.D.N.Y 2017).
Paguirigan v. Prompt Nursing Emp't Agency LLC, 286 F. Supp. 3d 430 (E.D.N.Y 2017). “GERSHON, United States District Judge: *434 Plaintiff Rose Ann Paguirigan brings claims, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 et seq. , 1 and declaratory judgment against…”
Elat v. Ngoubene, 993 F. Supp. 2d 497 (D. Maryland 2014). “On October 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed an eighteen-count Complaint against her uncle, Frangois Ngoubene, her aunt, Marie Thérése Ngoubene, and her cousins, Caroline Ngoubene, Roxane Ngoubene, and Dany Ngoubene, as well as their brother, Collins Rene Ngoussomo, alleging, inter…”
Winfred Muchira v. Halah Al-Rawaf, 850 F.3d 605 (4th Cir. 2017). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1589 . We affirm. I. A. Muchira is from a small village in Kenya.”
William Burrell, Jr. v. Tom Staff, 60 F.4th 25 (3rd Cir. 2023). “The SAC contends that conditioning plaintiffs’ access to work release—which would have enabled them to earn the money they needed to secure their freedom from incarceration—on completing a period of sub-minimum-wage, dangerous, and disgusting work at a private business amounted…”
Cesar Martinez-Rodriguez v. Curtis Giles, 31 F.4th 1139 (9th Cir. 2022). “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 (a)(3), 1590(a). Plaintiffs therefore asserted triable causes of action under the civil suit provision of Chapter 77.”
United States v. Zhong, 26 F.4th 536 (2d Cir. 2022). “§ 1594 (b); (2) forced labor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (a) and (b); (3) concealing passports and immigration documents in connection * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.”
Bistline v. Parker, 918 F.3d 849 (10th Cir. 2019). “Consequently, the district court concluded that “[t]his theory [wa]s not sufficient to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (a).” Id. at 839. The district court also rejected plaintiffs’ allegations “that Defendants engaged in a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the…”
United States v. Jordie Callahan, 801 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2015). “§ 371 ; forced labor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 (a) and 2; and acquisition of a controlled substance by deception, in violation of 21 U.”
United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2010). “WESLEY, Circuit Judge: Defendant-Appellant was convicted following a jury trial on charges of violating the forced labor and sex trafficking provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 , 1591. In an opinion dated August 14, 2008, this Court…”
Ross v. Jenkins, 325 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (D. Kan. 2018). “The federal claims include violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 , 1590, and 1595, for human trafficking and forced labor; the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.”
Ditullio v. Boehm, 662 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2011). “Appellant Miranda Ditullio alleges that she is one of the victims identified in Boehm's plea agreement and seeks compensatory and punitive damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1589 et seq. (hereinafter "TVPA").”
Menocal v. GEO Grp., Inc., 882 F.3d 905 (10th Cir. 2018). “*910 This appeal addresses whether immigration detainees housed in a private contract detention facility in Aurora, Colorado (the "Aurora Facility") may bring claims as a class under (1) 18 U.S.C. § 1589 , a provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (the "TVPA") that…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1589(3) — 1 case
United States v. Peterson, 544 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2008).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a) — 5 cases
William Burrell, Jr. v. Tom Staff, 60 F.4th 25 (3rd Cir. 2023). “The SAC contends that conditioning plaintiffs’ access to work release—which would have enabled them to earn the money they needed to secure their freedom from incarceration—on completing a period of sub-minimum-wage, dangerous, and disgusting work at a private business amounted…”
Doe v. Nestle, S.A., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
Matos Rodriguez v. Pan Am. Health Org. (D.D.C. 2020).
Sahebdin v. Khelawan (E.D.N.Y 2022).
United States v. Thuy Luong (4th Cir. 2025).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(2) — 1 case
Anora v. Oasis Prof'l Mgmt. Grp., Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2023).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1589(c)(2) — 1 case
Elat v. Ngoubene, 993 F. Supp. 2d 497 (D. Maryland 2014). “On October 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed an eighteen-count Complaint against her uncle, Frangois Ngoubene, her aunt, Marie Thérése Ngoubene, and her cousins, Caroline Ngoubene, Roxane Ngoubene, and Dany Ngoubene, as well as their brother, Collins Rene Ngoussomo, alleging, inter…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.